Obama--A Liar? Treasonous?
I'm a military parent who was going to support Obama until I read that he's been lying about plans to bring our troops home. He's been telling the public that's what he'll do, but he's been secretly urging the Iraqi Government to delay an agreement with the Bush administration to draw down our troops. He doesn't want any troops leaving while Bush is in office because he wants to looks like a hero and bring them home on his own terms when he's elected. Amir Tahiri has written at least 3 articles about it and people are saying it's true.
I'm pissed.
Because that's the kind of comment you'll see in response to the Taheri articles.
A few days ago, Josh wrote that he'd get back to it, but I suspect that the economic crisis has diverted his attention. Taheri and his ilk are running with it and I'm afraid it's snowballing.
In my opinion, McCain has sold another piece of his soul by sending Scheunemann out with his "political interference" statement. He is content to let a military mom or dad who has been counting on Obama's promises to get their kid home ASAP believe it's been a lie. I wonder how many of the troops believe the lie. In fact, I wonder if there are cease-fire factions in Iraq who might change their stance if they believe Obama is lying about his position. This is the kind of smear that can get people killed. Taheri has an edge--he tells his stories to the Iraqi people in their language.
These aren't just innocent articles by a discredited author. The articles themselves are "political interference" of the kind that Obama is fighting against. When you can't get the votes based on your position, skew your opponent's position. It's disgusting.
If you feel unqualified to contribute to the discussion on the economic crisis, then please address the Taheri issue. But you won't be able to fight this one with Obama quotes alone. On this one, it helps if you know the background of the various "agreements" that are at the heart of the issue. The "agreements" should have become a national debate last November when the "Declaration of Principals" was released. Understanding the agreements is important because if a reporter doesn't know one agreement from the other, they paraphrase Obama and leave an opening for Taheri to "quote" Obama. Taheri paraphrases and then paraphrases the paraphrasers. Brilliant. He offers just enough truth to confuse his readers. Limbaugh went so far as to take one of Taheri's oft-quoted Zebari statements and add a few words of his own to the quote. I guess he thought no one would notice. His title reads, "Obama camp confirms treasonous actions on Iraq trip".
My assessment is this: Obama, along with many others in Congress and many notable Republicans, is concerned that the Bush administration will commit America to an agreement that may OBLIGATE our troops to engage in combat in the future. It's obviously more complicated than that, but the bottom line is that reasonable people believe that the Bush administration should delay making any agreement that could lock the American people into commitments that they don't support. We should know by now that the Bush administration plays by a different set of rules than the rest of us--if you don't call the "agreement" a treaty, then it's not and therefore, doesn't require Congressional approval even if it has treaty-like obligations. But the next administration may have to figure out how to untangle us from what the rest of the world views as "international obligations".
McCain should have had Scheunemann come out and support Obama's position instead of fueling the smear. Unless, of course, McCain believes that Bush should lock him into agreements that he may not support. Or, perhaps he's been so busy campaigning that he's not paying attention to the multiple hearings on the issue and the calls for Congressional inclusion in the decisions. My take is that his response speaks to his lack of integrity.
The hearing transcript that will bring you up to speed on the difference between the various "agreements" is this:
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/41061.pdf
Google Taheri and Obama to get an idea about the snowballing smear.
















This has been debunked. Obama was in the meetings along with Bush administration officials, as well as Chuck Hagel, and stated clearly that the US spoke with one voice, and that voice was the Bush administration.
Taheri is a liar.
September 22, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bottom line is this...I have faith in Obama. If Bush's lips are moving, he's lying.
If you are seriously considering voting for McCain because of this, or any other issue, I'd encourage you to rethink your position.
No politicians are pure. With McCain you KNOW you're getting an even dumber and more aggressive version of Bush...With Obama, you have the possibility of getting something better. Even if I wasn't completely convinced that he's a good guy (which I am) I'd stick with the chance of something better. McCain scares the crap outta me...daily.
September 22, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your concern but Chuck Hagel , the Republican senator from NE that accompanied him clearly stated that this was not true.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/undermining-mcc.html
Barack has made it clear that he plans on bringing the troops home in 18 months.
Obama is not lying on this issue.
I hope your son stays safe!!! And thanks from my entire family for his service
September 22, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know all that. You're not getting my post. My fault. I want you guys to get pissed off too. The debunking isn't working. And the reason it's not working is because even reporters don't know the issue, so they don't know how to prove the lie. Read the whole post.
September 22, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of the two candidates, the one who has been consistently and frequently shown to be a liar is John McCain.
September 22, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without. A. Doubt!
Along with his Partner and Soul Mate in Lying, The Dame of Shame!
September 22, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taheri is a liar and tends to make promises and give interviews to the Iraqi's without approval from those that gave him his job.At the link below are Taheri's statements he has so graciously been giving and he does nothing but lie and talk just so he can be heard in almost every one . http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=13764 ,
September 22, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taheri is a islamic CLONE of Russ Limbaugh /Sean Hannity ,read his history of telling FALSE 'news' and outright LIES at ,makes one wonder why this guy is still alive ,maybe he's a 'mole' for smear stories by dirty politicans ?:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amir_Taheri
September 22, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the writer might be speaking about Bush/McCain. I read today that Bush slowed down the withdrawl process to help McCain in the election. This from an Iraqi minister.
September 23, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this article tends to confuse, as the writer starts out with a non-quote quote, so to speak..paraphrasing what a Taheri reader/convert might say. It's NOT the slant of the rest of the post. The writer is, in effect, saying that Taheri is a complete fraud, but worries that the uninitiated might be falling for this Reicht-wing garbage (along with the "moslem", "rezko-bought", "responsible for economic crisis"-type lies circulating) that the McBush crowd willingly circulates! Any port in a storm, for them! All means justify the end!
All anyone has to do is go to Wikipedia's bio on Amir Taheri, to see what a zealot and kook he is..how everything he puts out there winds up being debunked..and that what he says only consists of about 1/2% of the truth! There is reputable article after article that yanks his covers. Taheri is a very partisan rabble-rouser, with a personal mission, particularly when it comes to anything Iranian! Be aware of this whacko! If he says it, it's got to be a lie.
I can see Obama wanting to be sure that any agreement doesn't shortchange the next administration..which is just what the Bush/McCain crime family would happily do..and the liklihood of any troops getting out in significant numbers before the election is unlikely anyway..but Obama is NOT going to sacrifice the troops for the sake of "I did it", for crissakes! Hey..that's the philosophy of the Repubs, after all.
If you'll recall Saint Ronald making a pact with the Iranians to hold onto the hostages until AFTER the 1980 election..so he could lay claim to their "salvation"! That was tied up, if you'll remember in a little bag called "Iran-Contra", which included illegal gun sales and other nefarious, crooked matters? Think, question, and research, folks..
September 23, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU TRUMANBABY! Finally, a person who actually read the post before commenting. Yes, it is a PRO-OBAMA post. I just wrote it very badly and a follow-up post to clarify didn't help. The point of the post is that the Taheri debunking isn't working and I'm worried that Obama will lose support if the story continues to snowball.
What I've learned from this post is that people comment from the gut instead of absorbing the intended message--that's why debunking is so unsuccessful. Simply telling someone they're wrong doesn't cut it. If I had been someone on the fence, nothing offered to me in any of the comments would have convinced me to go Obama's way.
September 23, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink