Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (2431)	11/30/2008 4:08:17 PM
From: H-Man	4 Recommendations Respond to of 103300

Not Really. That post (electoralvote blog) barley mentions that the planned withdrawal is the result of a bilateral agreement - the Status of Forces agreement, that was negotiated over a long period with the Iraqi government. Barry proposes unilateral withdrawal by June 2010. "We are going to try this again," said Barack Obama. "Apparently, I was not clear enough this morning." "I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out," he said. "I would bring our troops home at a pace of one-to-two brigades per month. And at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position." Then Senator, Barack Hussein Obama, July 2008 Nobody noticed? More accurately stated that it was barely covered by the MSM. It is a huge win for the US and GWB. It provides ratification by the Iraqi government for the presence of the US troops... which of course is why it was barely covered. This is hardly a win for Iran. It is a huge setback. Iran lobbied hard against the signing of any SOF agreement. Here is some analysis from someone a bit more informed than the electoralvote blogger... TESTIMONY Thomas Donnelly House Foreign Affairs Committee (Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight) the agreement represents a serious setback for Iran. The Islamic Republic has lost and apparently still is losing influence in Iraq. The Tehran regime has been vehemently opposed to this agreement, strongly pressuring the Maliki government and portraying the negotiations as evidence of U.S. and Western neo-colonialism... Tehran also intensely lobbied and, reportedly, even bribed Iraqi politicians to oppose the agreement. More broadly, the Iranian government has been sponsoring an extensive propaganda campaign since last May... ...circulating rumors that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, arguably the most revered figure in all of Shi'a Islam, opposed the pact. In early October Maliki visited the reclusive cleric in Najaf to discuss the agreement, and recently, an Iraqi parliamentary delegation returned this past weekend with what one of the ayatollahs' spokesmen described as a "green light" of support from Sistani, thus thoroughly undercutting Tehran's position. Ayatollah Sistani went further to say that a majority vote in the parliament would represent the will of the Iraqi people, a critical expression of support for the democratic process and additional embarrassment to Tehran. And finally, the SOF can be extended. Just as the current SOF was put in place because the current UN will expire, there is nothing there to preclude an extension or additional agreement. I dunno where that dude gets his info, but clearly he is uninformed. aei.org

To: pompsander who wrote (2431)	12/1/2008 11:52:05 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

Re: "Hasn't George Bush pretty much adopted Obama's position..." Or, one could argue that he simply accepted the position that the IRAQI GOVERNMENT itself demanded..... (After all, they are supposed to be a 'sovereign' government, right?)