Fight The Smears: Debunking Taheri on the Obama Troop Withdrawal Hypocrisy Charge
This is going to be kind of a detailed political post. I originally wrote it for a message board. I'm hoping my readers can use it to fight the latest smear against Obama. Please feel free to copy it in its entirety.
-----------
Amir Taheri's article yesterday -- OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL -- states that Obama has advocated for a troop withdrawal in public, but in private talks with Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, he asked for a delay. The implication is that Obama is a treasonous hypocrite who is playing troop withdrawal for political gain.
First of all, the source is suspicious. Taheri is a known liar who makes up sensationalist stories for gullible neocon audiences to email forward each other. He made up a story about Iran last year that ruined his reputation as any kind of journalist. Wiki or Google his name and you'll find out pretty quickly. The NY Post is also known for sensationalist right-wing stories.
But let's take his charge seriously for a minute. Is it true?
On June 16th, Obama did meet with Foreign Minister Zebari. McCain met with Zebari the very same week. Obama has met with other Iraqi officials since then. So has McCain. These meetings are highly publicized. Obama gave a public press conference immediately after the June 16th meeting, where he went over what was said during the meeting. I repeat, neither the McCain nor Obama meetings have been secret.
Now, I'm going to quote Taheri's article. Pay close attention to the word "agreement", "demand for delay" and "status of troops".
"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.'
'However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.' Zebari says."
Did Zebari actually say that? Very likely. But he was talking about something completely different from troop withdrawal. The Status of Forces Agreement is a military legal term. Here's the Wikipedia definition:
"The SOFA is intended to clarify the terms under which the foreign military is allowed to operate. Typically, purely military issues such as the locations of bases and access to facilities are covered by separate agreements. The SOFA is more concerned with the legal issues associated with military individuals and property. This may include issues like entry and exit into the country, tax liabilities, postal services, or employment terms for host-country nationals, but the most contentious issues are civil and criminal jurisdiction over the bases. For civil matters, SOFAs provide for how civil damages caused by the forces will be determined and paid. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in U.S. SOFAs is that U.S. courts will have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a servicemember against another servicemember or by a servicemember as part of his or her military duty, but the host nation retains jurisdiction over other crimes."
We have no Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq.
This is understandably quite frustrating for the Iraqis. American citizens are essentially above the law. Those Blackwater contractors who flippantly massacred a bunch of civilians at a traffic stop last year, for example, weren't tried in an Iraqi court. The Abu Ghraib torturers weren't tried in an Iraqi court.
Even in allied countries where we do have a Status of Forces Agreement, it's a very complicated and potentially explosive issue. One example this year is the Michael Brown attempted rape case in Okinawa. It spurred attempts to make major revisions to the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement.
Now let's go back and read the Jebari quote again. This time, watch out for "regulates the activities of foreign troops".
"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.'
'However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.' Zebari says."
Obama is simply asking for a delay in the establishment of a Status of Forces Agreement. This is not something that even McCain or Bush would disagree with. Our current policy has been to stall, stall, stall because an SOFA would mean that American troops would no longer be above the law. Cynically, it's in America's best interests not to have an SOFA yet; morally, we really should have one. But then, morally (and practically) we shouldn't have gone there in the first place.
Why is he asking for a delay? Here's a quote from an MSNBC article from June 16th. Keep an eye out for some interesting parallels to the Taheri smear. Watch for the word "weak".
"In response to a question about how much flexibility there would be to withdrawal plans, Obama said he still believed U.S. forces could be out of the country within about 16 months and that 'I've also consistently said that I will consult with military commanders on the ground and that we will always be open to the possibility of tactical adjustments. The important thing is to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and most importantly to the Iraqi leadership that the U.S. occupation in Iraq is finite, it is gonna be coming to a foreseeable end.'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.'"
Wow. Notice that Obama makes his point in an extremely diplomatic and transparent fashion, and even includes the contingency of McCain winning.
But today, true to form, the McCain campaign immediately takes the low road. According to a post at Politico, they're rubbing the Taheri smear all over themselves, hooting, and flinging crap at the press hoping that some of it will stick.
"McCain aide Randy Scheunemann, however, attacked Obama based on the Post column.
'At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power,' he said. 'If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation.'"
Let's wrap it up:
1) Obama has not interfered in diplomatic relations with Iraq anymore than McCain has. Both are U.S. Senators who have involvement with foreign relations. Both have met privately with top Iraqi officials.
2) Taheri pretends that the word "agreement" means "troop withdrawal", when it really means "the legal status of American forces in Iraq".
3) Obama's position on the SOFA is probably not substantially different than McCain or Bush.
4) Taheri's piece is a lie masquerading as a smear masquerading as an opinion piece masquerading as investigative journalism.
Please copy, paste and forward as much as you want.

Foster Care System Perspectives
