« May 4, 2008 - May 10, 2008 | Home

Week of September 21, 2008 - September 27, 2008

Have you ever...?


Have you ever written a post that has been completely misunderstood?  That you wrote really badly?  I did that earlier today.  John Nail, stillidealistic, and haremoor were kind enough to respond.  Those responses told me how poorly the post was written.  I was trying in my feeble way to get you guys ticked off because I'm passionate about the subject.  How I wish I could write like Deanie.  It was a post about Taheri's destructive articles, and how the attempts at debunking them aren't working.  I'm also aware that when this community gets involved, things happen.  I'm a huge Obama supporter & I hope you'll give the post another look and get involved.  BTW, I was touched that you weren't cruel when you thought I was on the other side. 

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.

 

« May 4, 2008 - May 10, 2008 | Home

lucywho

user-pic

Following: 1
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address