NY Post article CONFIRMED ~ More Proof Obama Is UNFIT to Be Commander In Chief!

DISGRACEFUL ACTION TAKEN IN IRAQ FOR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE!

SACRAMENTO) — Move America Forwards political action committee, MAF Freedom PAC, today condemned Barack Obama for putting his own political objectives ahead of the safety of U.S. military personnel in Iraq.
Iraqi government sources have revealed to the New York Post that Presidential candidate Barack Obama demanded Iraqi officials stop negotiations with the Bush Administration to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. Fearful that the success in Iraq would harm his political aspirations, Obama sought to keep U.S. troops in Iraq so he can continue attacking the Bush Administration for not imposing a timetable for withdrawal.
If these allegations prove to be true, it should be the end of the Obama campaign, asserted MAF Freedom PAC Chairman, Melanie Morgan.
Obama should have the decency to recognize that he lacks the moral character to serve as Commander-in-Chief, and he should withdraw from the ticket. I have never heard of any candidate deliberately trying to get Americans killed to prove their point.
According to the New York Post story, not only did Obama seek to get the Iraqis to stop negotiating with Americans on the troop drawdown, he also tried to bully General David Petraeus to agree to a hard withdrawal date.
The hypocrisy of Barack Obama to say in the United States that he wants a speedier troop withdrawal date, while telling the Iraqis to stop negotiating is appalling. Even supporters of a quicker U.S. withdrawal must be sickened by his conduct in Iraq. If there was ever a candidate who has demonstrated the lack of character and leadership to represent the United States in foreign affairs, it is Barack Obama, Morgan concluded.
MAF Freedom PAC is the political action arm of Move America Forward , the nations largest pro-troop organization. The patriotic group is led by San Francisco pro-troop activist and renowned radio & television personality, Melanie Morgan.

And this by Rush Limbaugh
Obama Pressured Iraq to Delay Troop Withdrawals

Obama Campaign Confirms Effort To Delay Troop Pullout In Iraq
Obama Pressured Iraq to Delay Troop Withdrawals
Despite his insistent demands for a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama secretly urged Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement that would lead to a draw down in troop numbers.
A blockbuster expose in Monday’s New York Post by Amir Tahiri revealed that Obama made his demand for the delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told The Post.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview with The Post.

Zabari recalled that Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of U.S. 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 said.

Obama says he wants U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2010, a development that would be impossible if the status of forces agreement were delayed as he asked the Iraqis.
In addition to his backdoor approach to the Iraqis, The Post said Obama also sought to persuade U.S. commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date,” a request they refused.

The Post noted that, “to be credible, Obma’s foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.”

“Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared,” The Post stated, adding that “the United Nations mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.”

.

NY Post article CONFIRMED!
Obama-Biden Reservations Confirmed
The Obama campaign spent more than five hours on Monday attempting to figure out the best refutation of the explosive New York Post report that quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying that Barack Obama during his July visit to Baghdad demanded that Iraq not negotiate with the Bush Administration on the withdrawal of American troops.
Instead, he asked that they delay such negotiations until after the presidential handover at the end of January.
The three problems, according to campaign sources:
* The report was true,
* there were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation,
* and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.
Instead, Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi told reporters that Obama told the Iraqis that they should not rush through what she termed a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of U.S. forces until after President Bush left office.
In other words, the Iraqis should not negotiate an American troop withdrawal. According to a Senate staffer working for Sen. Joseph Biden, Biden himself got involved in the shaping of the statement. “The whole reason he’s on the ticket is the foreign policy insight,” explained the staffer.

.

And this……………..
OBAMA OBJECTS BUT THE EVIDENCE SAYS I’M RIGHT
New York Post for complete article ( it is several pages long so I will just put a little of it here.
IN Monday’s Post, I discussed how Barack Obama, during his July trip, had asked Iraqi leaders not to finalize an agreement vital to the future of US forces in Iraq – and how the effect of such a delay would be to postpone the departure of the US from Iraq beyond the time Obama himself calls for.
The Obama campaign has objected. While its statement says my article was “filled with distortions,” the rebuttal actually centers on a technical point: the differences between two Iraqi-US accords under negotiation – the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA, to set rules governing US military personnel in Iraq) and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA, to settle the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq in the months and years ahead).
The Obama camp says I confused the two. It continues: “On the Status of Forces Agreement, Sen. Obama has always said he hoped that the US and Iraq would complete it – but if they did not, the option of extending the UN mandate should be considered.

“As to the Strategic Framework Agreement, Sen. Obama has consistently said that any security arrangements that outlast this administration should have the backing of the US Congress – especially given the fact that the Iraqi parliament will have the opportunity to vote on it.”

If there is any confusion, it’s in Obama’s position – for the two agreements are interlinked: You can’t have any US military presence under one agreement without having settled the other accord. (Thus, in US-Iraqi talks, the aim is a comprehensive agreement that covers both SOFA and SFA.)
And the claim that Obama only wanted the Strategic Framework Agreement delayed until a new administration takes office, and had no objection to a speedy conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement, is simply untrue.

Here is how NBC reported Obama’s position on June 16, after his conversation in the US with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari: “Obama also told Zebari, he said, that Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement.”

In other words, Obama wanted a delay on the Status of Forces Agreement, not on the Strategic Framework Agreement – as his rebuttal now claims.
Continue reading here for the other 4 pages GREAT article!
Taheri’s article concluding remarks:
The real news I see in the Obama statement is that there may be an encouraging evolution in his position on Iraq: The “rebuttal” shows that the senator no longer shares his party leadership’s belief that the United States has lost the war in Iraq.
He now talks of “the prospect of lasting success,” perhaps hoping that his own administration would inherit the kudos. And he makes no mention of his running mate Joe Biden’s pet project for carving Iraq into three separate states. He has even abandoned his earlier claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was “illegal” and admits that the US-led coalition’s presence in Iraq has a legal framework in the shape of the UN mandate.
In his statement on my Post article, Obama no longer talks of “withdrawal” but of “redeployment” and “drawdown” – which is exactly what is happening in Iraq now.
While I am encouraged by the senator’s evolution, I must also appeal to him to issue a “cease and desist” plea to the battalions of his sympathizers – who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.

.

Wild Thing’s comment………..
In another time and place with an honest media….this would sink Team Obama.
So let me see if I have this correct,
first he Denied it,
then called Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari a liar, then admitted to it ….. sort off.
And he wants to be Commander in Chief… he can not even talk with out a TelePrompter….Lord help us!
Barack Obama – Putting his own political and personal interests ahead of our nation’s interests.