Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Obama smeared by Taheri on Iraq Troop Withdrawals;
Journalist Notorious for False Story on Iranian Jews;
Odierno Warns Iraq still Unstable

Amir Taheri, the rightwing Iranian 'journalist' who is the least accurate reporter to feign practicing journalism since Gutenberg invented movable metal type accused Barack Obama of seeking "a deal to delay US troops' from Iraq when he was in Baghdad last summer.

That makes no sense. The Iraqis have published their negotiating points, and they have been saying that they want a US withdrawal by 2010. That is virtually the same as Obama's plan, so it is highly unlikely that he was urging them to extend that timetable to 2011 or beyond. Taheri has garbled what Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari told him.

The Obama campaign said,

'But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.

"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades," Morigi said.'


Taheri can't get his facts right. He alleged in his piece that Iraq would form a new government after elections late this year. False. What are being planned are only provincial elections. The al-Maliki government is safe until early 2010 when the next round of parliamentary elections is scheduled to be held. Since al-Maliki has a stable constituency in the Shite south, 60% of the population, it is a little unlikely that he will be unseated.

Amir Taheri is the one who tried to get a false story started a couple of years ago that the Iranian government had passed a law requiring Iranian Jews to wear special clothing. The story was false and was denied by the Jewish member of the Iranian parliament. Taheri has a connection to the Neoconservative 'talent' agency, Benador Associates, whose clients helped get up the Iraq War.

If McCain trusts Taheri's account on this one, he is setting himself up for a fall.

Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno has taken over command of US troops in Iraq and began his duties with a warning of how difficult things still are.

The success of Republican Party propaganda that Iraq is "calm" now has the disadvantage for US commanders facing daily violence that it may mislead Congress and the public into cutting the support the commanders feel is still very much necessary.

Ned Parker of the LAT argues that Iraq is now in the hands of Iran and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in any case, and increasingly that the scope for American action there is limited. Al-Maliki has gotten control of the Iraqi military and intelligence apparatuses and makes his decisions independently of the US. Iran has helped convince the Mahdi Army to stand down, allowing him to consolidate control over the Shiite areas. He will take control of 50,000 Sunnis in the awakening councils on October 1 and may demobilize them and even prosecute some of them for past acts of terrorism. He has also started projecting state power into parts of Iraq now patrolled by the Kurdish Peshmerga, provoking a conflict with the Kurds of some bitterness. Kurdistan Regional Government president Massoud Barzani warned on Sunday that Kurdish troops in the Iraqi army could mutiny if the Arab-Kurdish conflict deepened. Barzani's outrage derives from his realization that Baghdad is reasserting itself under al-Maliki.

The Bush administration has declared itwill confiscate bank accounts and assets in the United States of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a clerical political party of Sunni fundamentalists, which Washington accuses of plotting terrorist actions against the Green Zone. The AMS, which has no assets anyplace the US treasury department could get at them, denies the charges.


Iraq is being flooded with weapons and Amnesty International says that the US and the UK are doing too little to interdict them.

Labels:

15 Comments:

At 5:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How the mighty has fallen.

A presidential candidate, with no executive power, colludes with a puppet government of a small third world country to screw the US President. The Chimp is now a poor victim of all and sundry! What ever happened to the Master of the Universe and God's chum?

 
At 7:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The deal is dead and buried, and has been for a long time. It is not a question of when, but whether.

According to the Iraqi Parliament Speaker (see, in Arabic: http://www.alsabaah.com/paper.php?source=akbar&mlf=interpage&sid=69840) before parliament can vote on the deal, a new law regulating treaties needs to be formulated then passed by two-third majority.

The deal is dead even without this hoop, however. According to FM Zibari, Bush has replied to Iraq's requests by sticking to his "aspirational" and "horizons" and the likes. Such text will not be passed by Maliki who has been told by Iran, Sistani, and the Iraqi nationalists to insist on a specific deadlines.

Even if Maliki approves, and the law regulating foriegn traties is passed, Parliament will not pass the SOFA. It is dead, deceased, gone, R.I.P.: clear enough?

 
At 9:31 AM, Anonymous DN said...

"Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office."

I.e. he tried to obstruct POTUS forein police, which, by Logan law, is either fine or three years in prison.

All the rest is words.

 
At 1:16 PM, Anonymous JHM said...

The end will really be nigh when somebody actually gets convicted under the so-called "Logan Act" of 1799.

Meanwhile the ignorant trot it out in vain, since apparently there has never been even a failed prosecution.

Happy days.

 
At 2:40 PM, Anonymous Aaron P said...

"In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq."

Hey look what happens when you don't lie by ommission! The reason is because Congress should be able to vote on this to make it a legal treaty arrangement, not because Obama wants American's to keep dying.

 
At 3:00 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

ref : “propaganda that Iraq is "calm" now has the disadvantage for US commanders facing daily violence that it may mislead Congress and the public into cutting the support the commanders feel is still very much necessary...

necessary... to do what? necessary... for American ground forces to remain there? why?

Under General Petraeus our military have clusterf*cked themselves into becoming nothing more than heavy armor and air power back-up to the Shi'ite BADR militia-based, Zone d'Occupation Iranienne al-Maliki ‘government’. Why on earth would the Americans want to continue this humiliating, bleeding, treasure-burning stasis of forces?

The American officer corps may be rife with political cronyism, Peter-Principled incompetence at the Staff level, and even some military-industrial corruption: but they are not suicidal, professor.

if ACT II was "The Surge", surely ACT III will be "The Purge". imho, General Petraeus is a defacto lame duck; the commander's protégé, Odierno is a known blunt instrument, an entirely inappropriate "assault troop commander" hammer for the task at hand of delicate political origami; and regardless of which political party captures the White House in November, i daresay there will be as much regime change throughout the disgraced neocon Pentagon as there is today blood all over a desperate Wall Street: The Mission is to rescue and recover, not remain, Over There.

 
At 6:02 PM, Anonymous fatima said...

Amir taheri is a Neoconservative and he writes not only on Benador associates (where richard perle is on board of directors ) But he also writes for the Saudi owned AL Sarq Al awsat , if he is not polishing the image of the US in Baghdad , he is pushing for war against tehran. He still did not apologize for that story about iranian jews wearing yellow clothing yet .shame on him . the guy is not a professional journalist, he simply writes for those who can pay .

 
At 7:41 PM, Blogger karlof1 said...

As the financial foudation of the USA accelerates its turning to sand, Maliki stands pat. In fact, even in its ruined state, Iraq is in better financial condition than the countries whose armed forces occupy it. 105 days until the UNSC mandate expires. Global Policy Forum has prepared this page of linked items that discuss the history of the so-called mandate and how its been renewed the past several times. It's my contention that Iran was able to placate Al-Sadr by assuring him Maliki will not again ignore the will of the Iraqi Parliament/People and seek renewal. I can think of no other reason powerful enough to keep Sadr neutral so long.

 
At 8:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surely this is the end game for the US in Iraq? The Sunnis have been bought off, 'victory' has been declared (ignoring the actual facts on the ground), and its time for the troops to be pulled out (except for the long-term bases of course). Maliki knows this, and that there is no need to compromise with the US any longer.

 
At 11:21 PM, Anonymous Shirin said...

"The Iraqis have published their negotiating points, and they have been saying that they want a US withdrawal by 2010. That is virtually the same as Obama's plan"

No it's not. Obama has never intended to completely withdraw troops. His plan has from the beginning been to reconfigure and continue the occupation with a reduced number of troops. And even his talk about withdrawing "all combat troops" is deceptive.

Very close to the beginning of the primary season he spelled out his plan for Iraq, including that he would leave a "residual force" to fulfill certain specified "missions" which - surprise, surprise - included combat. So, unless he plans to send cooks, truck drivers, and mechanics into combat, he cannot possibly withdraw all combat troops.

And just to keep things fair, Hillary spelled out her plan about the same time he did his. Their plans were virtually identical and intended, as Hillary put it, to continue "the military as well as the political mission" in Iraq.

Occupation is occupation, and and imperialism is imperialism, even when you call it "withdrawal".

 
At 11:24 PM, Anonymous Shirin said...

"Parliament will not pass the SOFA"

Please do not call it a SOFA. It is not a SOFA, and to call it that is to play right along with the lies of the Bush administration.

 
At 3:30 AM, Anonymous BF said...

Mr Amir Taheri's unholy journalistic practices are rather well-documented in the following Wikipedia biography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri

Perhaps someone would wish to add his recent handiwork to the above-mentioned biography.

BF.

 
At 6:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush is a liar, of course.

You people get so caught up in the lies that you forget they are all lies.

Obama said he would recall all "combat troops". That would be all troops who are actively engaged in combat. Not the troops who are stationed on the permanent mega bases the Bush/Republicans have built.

Political weasel wording.

The American people are pathetically stupid. Which is why we have pathetically stupid leaders.

Other countries are no better than we are...as much as they would like to think so.

 
At 11:28 AM, Anonymous Shirin said...

"Obama said he would recall all "combat troops". That would be all troops who are actively engaged in combat."

As I pointed out above, even that is untruthful. Based on the "missions" he has described for the tens of thousands of troops he would leave in Iraq, he could not possibly withdraw ALL combat troops, because some of those "missions" are primarily combat missions.

"Other countries are no better than we are...as much as they would like to think so."

I would put that another way. YOU are no better than other countries...as much as you would like to think so.

 
At 7:32 PM, Anonymous Rob, Frederick, MD said...

So are you carrying the water for Obama on this or not? It is clear from the statement from Obama's camp that there was a discussion regarding delaying the negotiations. How you frame it does not dismiss the notion it took place nor the intent behind the discussions. So, Reagan was guilty off the bat but Obama innocent....hmmm and yet there was never hard evidence against President Reagan of collusion with Iran.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home