Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Another Swift Boat Vet Bows Out of Obama Attacks

By Matthew Mosk
Another veteran of the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry has indicated he will not participate in financing ads attacking Democrat Barack Obama.

Already, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens said in interviews that he would bow out to pursue a campaign to end the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Now a second major donor, Texas billionaire Sam Wyly, who has given about $10 million to Republican candidates and causes since the 1970s, has said publicly he will not participate in independent group efforts to tarnish Obama this year.

A number of veterans of the withering ad campaign against Kerry in 2004, which was sponsored by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, are trying to reorganize in the final weeks of the 2008 campaign through the American Issues Project, The Post reported over the weekend. But in an interview with the Associated Press published this morning, Wyly was asked if he would finance another Swift Boat-type campaign this year.

"No, no, no," Wyly said. Laughing, he said, "I've done that, and other people can do that now."

One clue as to why he might be sitting this election out can be found in his 2000 campaign efforts. Wyly gave $2.5 million to a group that favored then-Gov. George W. Bush over Sen. John McCain. McCain complained bitterly about the ads, calling on the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the group, which went by the name Republicans for Clean Air.

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 15, 2008; 5:37 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , John McCain , The Green Zone  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Palin Impersonators Strip for Their Supper
Next: For Obamas, It's Life Behind Barricades

Comments

Anyone remember the Keating 5? If not look it up on google.

Posted by: paintgirl | September 18, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

National Security number one issue. Don't forget we are at war. Obama gets in F. Remember he wanted to withdraw by now. Mcain gets the win. Obama gest the loss. Facts

Posted by: snort | September 18, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

"Top Gun Johnnie was a war criminal bombing civilians in Hanoi. He's lucky they didn't kill him when he crashed. After all, that's what he was doing to them.

58,000+ kids died for nothing."

And the blame for that lies at the feet of hippies like you. I don't know who is more of an asshat, you or the guy that says republicans aren't welcome at the polls.

Posted by: Wolf | September 17, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Say editor are you blind,Or just stupid.
Or are you SCOTT?

Posted by: sam3 | September 16, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Wow! You republicans are so dumb! Please stay home on election day! You are not wanted at the polls and you should just leave the country!

retards!

Posted by: G | September 16, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

This guy is a savvy business man. He doesn't want to anger folks that support his wind power initiatives. They tend to vote for Democrats. He has the support of the Sierra Club for the "Pickens Plan", which promotes oil alternatives.

Posted by: MBlack1 | September 16, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Posting the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

The Agreement in question is a 'Status of Forces' agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Forces_Agreement), which lays down the legal terms and conditions under which an occupying force can stay in a country. We've been working without that particular net ever since the Iraqi invasion, and to me at least, it makes sense that the congress should be involved in the negotiations, and we not leave it up to the current administration to negotiate the terms, when the election is so near.

Oh, a Status of Forces Agreement has nothing to do with the *withdrawal* of troops, only the legal terms under which our troops can stay.

Posted by: SP | September 16, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Billionaires tend to be smart about money. Wyly knows that McCain is going to lose, so he doesn't want to throw his dollars away.

Posted by: John | September 16, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Isn't his daughter a big time Obama supporter? Maybe she's reasoning with him...

Posted by: Lola | September 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Palin claim foreign policy expertise on the claim that Russia is visible from Alaska? In that case, because I can see a dairy farm from across my house I claim expertise in bovine scatology.

Posted by: ForeignPolicyExpert | September 16, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

scott is telling lies big time. the REAL tamperer was reagan and the elder bush during the hostage crisis in iran. they not only delayed the release of the hostages but then sold arms to the iranians and siphoned the profits off to fund the contras in central america, which was OUTLAWED by congress. so........


buzz of scott. you are just flinging crap against the wall and hoping it sticks.

Posted by: Laura | September 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Scott...go get a life or learn new talking points from your hero Anal Cyst limbaugh!

Posted by: Russell | September 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

It seems that some neocons want Obama to lose so much that they will actually believe such idiocy. A reasonable person wouldn't take this seriously especially when it comes from a conservative rag like the ny post. I actually thought that thing was gone away. But Sen. Obama's meeting was with al Maliki, the Iraqi leader, not with the foreign service minister.

Posted by: AB | September 16, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Garbage in garbage out. In some sense, this is God's response to the stupid decisions Americans make election after election. John Kerry is a very intelligent man. If Americans elected him last time, the economy would be raging upwards. Housing crisis would have been taken care of a long time ago, and your house would be appreciating right now. Oh no, for Americans, the most important thing is how two people choose to have sex somewhere in a free country. That is more important. Well, this is what you get for your choice. Now elect McCain, and four years later, you will remember this year as the good old days.

Posted by: tom | September 16, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I see Republicans (like Scott) believe that if they say something over and over again it will become true.

Maybe that's why they're so tied to faith. They have faith that someday their tired old lies will become truth.

How any of them sleep at night (in their 7 homes) is beyond me. It must be amazing to have no sense of right and wrong whatsoever.

Posted by: Texas Woman | September 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Indepedent Jewel here -- here are my two cents: I supported Senator McCain in the 2000 primary -- I truly believed he was a man of principle, discipline and intergrity. I was never a fan of George Bush -- I always thought he lacked intelligence and compassion.

In 2008, I was an early supporter of Senator McCain, but honestly now I find myself truly replused by his campaign and politics. Same politics that the Bush's machine unleashed on him [lies, deceit], he is unleashing on Obama -- unfairly and without honor.

There were/are a plethera of talented men and women Senator McCain could have choosen that would have served the ticket and our nation well, instead he is pandering and putting our lives in jeopardy. Senator Palin is not ready to be VP or POTUS; Senator McCain is no longer a maverick!

After much research, consideration, and investigation, which I hope most of the American electorate will do on their own instead of relying on campaign ads, surrogates, talking heads, political pundits and the likes, I can no longer support Senator McCain bid for the White House. This independent will be voting for Obama-Biden November 4th.

Posted by: Jewel Paller | September 16, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Campaign Obama beset with some troubling scandals and stormy political foreboding. We’re not talking about Rezko and Ayers stuff which have been known since the primaries and continue to expand. We’re talking about a vast surge in scrutiny surrounding Obama’s beloved ACORN, about alienating half the voting populace in America by having surrogates question whether a mother should work. More, we’re talking about Obama’s potential violations of the Logan Act by tampering with U.S. negotiations with Iraq in order to impact the elections. The New York Post reported Barack Obama privately tried to persuade Iraqi political leaders to stall an agreement on scaling back American troops in Iraq while publicly campaigning for a speedy withdrawal, Obama’s request for a delay was a major theme of his talks with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said in an interview with the Post. Obama said that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of American troops, excluding the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion,” according to the report. Obama also reportedly tried to persuade the U.S. commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to offer a “realistic withdrawal date.” They declined, the Post said. As mentioned early this morning on American Sentinel, allegations that he attempted to tamper with negotiations in Iraq in order to benefit his campaign could, lead to actual prosecution.

Posted by: Obamatampering with U.S. negotiations with Iraq | September 16, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

David A wrote:
Palin’s lack of foreign policy knowledge it a big problem and to compare all that she does not know to the more intelligent Obama undermines your creditability.

What about the fact that Barack 'Apollo' Obama has struggled to name many a foreign leader? The fact is Sarah Palin has much more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined.

What I'd like to know is, now that Joe Biden released his tax returns for the last ten years, where did the money go? He supposedly has a net worth of around 100,000 yet made in the neighborhood of 3.3 million. Where did the money go? What I'd like to know is with all of the drugs Barack Obama supposedly did (he wrote about them in his book), why won't he release his medical records?

What I'd like to know is why is Obama blaming the demise of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Bush when the Dems (Clinton officials) have been in charge of both since the 90s? Where is the special prosecutor? Where is the investigation? Why? They are covering up for Obama.

Posted by: LeeHInAlexandria | September 16, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I am Palin, husband they call me 1st DUDE
and I support Obama Biden!

Posted by: bullwinkle the moose | September 16, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Mr. D. At least you consistently wrong.

Palin’s family does matter when she plans to tell you what to do with your body and your family.

Palin’s lack of foreign policy knowledge it a big problem and to compare all that she does not know to the more intelligent Obama undermines your creditability.

Bridge to Nowhere counts because a) they lie about her support and we have had enough lying in the White House b) McCain has railed against earmarks so to say they are now ok is more McCain double-talk.

Obama and terrorist is just things people say to themselves to make them feel better about not voting for the person they know would make a better President

McCain had been getting a free ride for years, now that the true McCain has come out the media is finally getting around to telling the truth about this once heroic person.

So that is why you are voting for McCain/Palin because like your reason you are simply wrong about the facts

Posted by: David A | September 16, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

NEVER, EVER UNDERESTIMATE THE IGNORANCE OR RACISM OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
THE ECONOMY IS FALLING DOWN AROUND OUR EAR AND MACCAIN SAYS, WHAT PHIL GRAMM (WHO IS TO BLAME IN LARGE PART, UBS) FOR THIS HORRIBLE MESS!
AND YET, EPOPLE WILL VOTE AGAINST THEMSELVES, TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
WELL, BLOOMBERG SAYS, THE ECONOMY IS BASICALLY GOOD.
WELL, BLOOMBERGS ENTIRE BILLION DOLLAR FORTUNE IS TIED TOT HE STOCK MARKET, WHAT DO YOU THINK HE WOULD SAY!
YOU FOOLS.
YOU'LL DRAG US ALL DOWN WITH YOU!
FOREIGN NATIONS ARE GOING TO STOP LENDING TO US, AND THEN, HERE COMES THE REAL
DEPRESSION.
YET, YOU WON'T TAKE SOMEONES HELP, REAL HELP.
WELL, HERE COMES THE DRAFT FOR MCCAINS WAR WITH RUSSIA AND IRAN.
GET YOUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS READY FOR THE DRAFT YOU IDIOTS.
BUT YOU WON'T HAVE JOBS OR HOMES. THE STOCK MARKET IS CRASHING BADLY AGAIN TODAY, AND YOUR 401(k)S ARE WORTHLESS!
IDIOTS! YOU'D RATHER DRAG EVERYONE DOWN WITH YOU BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF SOMEONES SKIN! SOME CHRISTIAN NATION THIS IS!
HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Andrea D | September 16, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I have nothing against conservative republicans, but the Neocon contingent of the GOP has really screwed us up for years to come.

McCain/Palin will do nothing but further the disastrous course this country is on. John McCain has continued, time and again, to prove to the American people that he is morally unfit to hold the highest office in the land. He has continually lied about the positions of Sarah Palin. How can anyone overlook this fact? How can anyone claim that John McCain is a Maverick, one that bucks the system. The plain fact is that he's not; he's strayed from who he is as a person to appease the hard right.

There are good conservative Americans who have seen through this. While I don't think they'll necessarily vote for Obama/Biden, my guess is that they won't vote at all. If you do vote Repoublican, vote Bob Barr.

Obama/Biden 2008!!!

Posted by: Nice Try | September 16, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

One definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over& over expecting different results. Republicans have been in firm control of Government for the last 8 years.
McCain is trying to hijack the mantle of change that Obama's been running on for nearly 2 years. It didn't work for Hillary & McCain having surrounded himself from top to bottom w/ Bush's henchmen certainly doesn't convince me of his sincerity.
Obama/ Biden 08'

Posted by: Chapman | September 16, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Just to clarify -
Stuff about Palin's family, pregnancies, etc. - I don't care

Stuff about Palin's lack of foreign policy experience - I care, but Obama's lack thereof is just as bad and he's running for President.

Stuff about a "bridge to nowhere" - I don't care

Stuff about Obama's ties to a known terrorist - I care

The media's pandering/pampering Obama while simultaneously trying to destroy a decent human being - I really care.

Although I'm sure there are better folks out there for the job I must side with McCain/Palin.

Posted by: Mr. D. | September 16, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

Can anyone tell me, what is the difference, between Sarah Palin and Dana Perino (White House press sec.)? The Mccain campaign makes no bones about this fact; “we need to get her up to speed on foreign affairs”. Is not this, which is done for a new White House press sec?
Should we not expect more from a vice presidential candidate, maybe a personal point of view? I do not believe, it could be possible, to conduct anything more than a press briefing littered with talking points, should one be willing, to attempt to conduct, any type of a meaningful conversation with Mrs.Palin.
Oddly enough, I now see that Mccain is a maverick after all. Mccain has selected for his running mate, not a vice presidential candidate, but both, the least qualified female imaginable from his party and a color-man (to use a sportcasting term - a Yes Mamm).
Revolutionary, not a vice presidential aspirant, but a talking head. Absolutely disappointing and truly sad.
Mccain choice for running mate leaves me to ponder this, is there a certain point in time, Mccain’s honor will have been lost forever, and no longer retrievable, I know not, for sure, when this threshold will be in jeopardy of having been crossed, through, it is with trepidation I fear, that already, this particular point in time, may have occurred. Mccain’s campaign, now, is an assault upon the honor, of which, Mccain once possessed.

Posted by: davidm2902 | September 16, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

Never underestimate the power of a repeated message. It was demonstrably false when the republicans claimed there were WMD's in Iraq. Many people tried to expose that lie. But, the repeated message, mixed with patriotism, won out over the truth.

McCain and Palin are not just blowing the usual political hot air. They are lying about the obvious. The facts are there for anyone to see, yet 45% of americans are considering voting for McCain Palin.

Does anyone believe they will be more honest if they do get elected?

Posted by: Karl | September 16, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

McCain needs to be swift-boated. Let's hear some of his buddies from pilot training tell us how responsible a pilot he was. McCain crashed two Navy aircraft prior to being deployed to Viet Nam.

I was in the Air Force and know that anyone who crashes a plane in pilot training usually does not get wings. Someone who crashes a 2nd plane gets a desk job. Then, after crashing 2 planes, McCain caused a minor international incident by hot dogging it in Spain and flying too low in a civilian area and cut power lines that left a village without electricity. (The village was larger than Wasilla, by the way.)

Did McCain face disciplinary action? No. Admiral Daddy seemed to wield a little preferential treatment (some might say it was an entitlement).

So the question is, when McCain got shot down (destroying a 3rd aircraft) over Hanoi, was he flying responsibly, or was he taking an irresponsible risk?

C'mon swift-boaters for "truth" -- what is the truth?

Posted by: McPlane | September 16, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Wow. It's a story about how many Republicans are going to get on board with a huge lie campaign to slander their opponent. Not that they are going to slander, but that some aren't.

"Swift boat," an honorable war vessel, has become redefined in the American mind to mean "Slander Campaign," thanks to Republicans. And no one's really shocked or appalled by it. They are just sort of surprised that some Republicans are passing on the opportunity this year.

Way to go, Republicans. The big story isn't that you're slandering people, it's that some of you aren't. Way to define your party and values. Right up there with the stories today that even Fox News and Karl Rove are calling the McCain campaign on their lies. Impressive way to soil and burn the house that Lincoln built.

Posted by: drossless | September 16, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

The Palin pick finally woke me up: McCain is an adventuresome risk taker who doesn't belong in any executive position, let alone the Presidency. McCain is a complete idiot who ignores the counsel of his "trusted" aides and just does whatever the hell he wants. Some executive.

Posted by: Jay Carlson | September 16, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

I didn't know Obama fought in Vietnam on the Swift boats... ;)

Posted by: angusr | September 16, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

>>>>
"There Ohio was right out in front, right in front of me," Palin said. "The teleprompter got messed up, I couldn't follow it, and I just decided I'd just talk to the people in front of me. It was Ohio."

Nope. Didn't happen
[ranting about lies]

--------------------

I'm sorry, but the very article you linked to proves that you are the liar, pretending she said something she didn't.

At several points through her speech, the teleprompter got out of whack, and *when that happened*, she winged it until it was re-synchronized.

Get it?

She never claimed it was not working through her entire speech.

Just like she never claimed Iraq was a task from god, or that she had gone there.

Look into the mirror before you go all morally indignant about telling lies.

Posted by: Sasha | September 16, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Given that Enron-linked....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E0D81038F934A25752C0A9649C8B63


..former senator, McCain economic advisor, and mortgage-industry-specializing banking lobbyist Phil Gramm...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24844889/


...has been credited as mover and shaker behind the very law that allowed the current financial meltdown to happen, I'd love to hear what McCain and Gramm think should be done to solve this crisis?

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20080701_Dave_Davies__A_few_minutes_with_McCain.html


As of yet, of course, their only response is to deny that any of it is significant. No problem, everything's fine. Sure, people are losing their homes to foreclosure; sure, investors are being wiped out. But hey, aside from that, everything's peachy.


Nonetheless... since McCain has indeed pegged Gramm as "one of the smartest person in the world" when it comes to economics, I'm dying to find out what Phil Gramm thinks should be done to fix the problem that Phil Gramm and the other lets-deregulate-everything Republicans helped create.


Maybe drilling will fix it? HAHAHA!!!


Maybe more deregulation will allow the free market to something something something?


Maybe if we had poured all our Social Security into these institutions, this would never have happened, because the free market dictates that private retirement investments always go up. Just like how dropped toast always lands on its edge?


Maybe the Republicans have invented a machine to convert crap into gold?


Maybe Lehman Brothers should have sold more stuff on eBay?


No, seriously -- I'm all ears. What's your advice to America this time, Gramm? McCain?.....even..maybe..Palin?!?!

Posted by: huh? | September 15, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

And...If Mr. Wyly would have joined in with the American Issues Project, he could have said to the press 'I was against McCain before I was for him'. But the truth is, Wyly would have done McCain no favors by joining the 527. Since McCain complained to high heaven about what Wyly et. al. did to him in 2000, how could he explain off Wyly's support, albeit indirect? It would make no sense--McCain would have to explain his duplicity concerning supporters, as if that's not enough. McCain's real problem IS the Economy. And there's nothing he, or the 527's that support him, can do about fiscal irresponsibility. So paint the Boogie Man, present your version of Obama any way you want. What's to Fear, a Black man in the White House?

Posted by: jrev7620042000 | September 15, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous | September 15, 2008 9:14 PM you wrote:
As part of the cover-up, Palin quickly transferred Bristol to another high school and made her move in with Sarah’s sister Heather 25 miles away!
Oh and how could I have forgotten… For the pleasure, I mean woman’s right to control her body from the arrears from those spontaneous reactions they could have done the easiest thing and have gotton rid of the most vulnerable and unrepresented fetus.. Oh that is so easy for you.

Posted by: Cliff | September 15, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Nice going, anonymous with your drivel about Track Palin. Sounds like "a little weed, a little blow" Obama was his role model.

Posted by: Chicago for Hillary

------------------------------------------

You might want to investigate things just a bit more closely before spewing, Palin admitted in her Alaskan political campaigns she and "First Dude" used to toke a few themselves.

Posted by: Oh brother! | September 15, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Pfft. Yet another lie. Yet another easy debunking. Yet another time to ask the question: why on earth would they even bother lying on this stuff?


At a fundraiser in Canton, Ohio, this evening, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had an interesting description of her speech to the Republican convention.


"There Ohio was right out in front, right in front of me," Palin said. "The teleprompter got messed up, I couldn't follow it, and I just decided I'd just talk to the people in front of me. It was Ohio."


Nope. Didn't happen.


This struck many of us -- who, as she spoke, followed along with her prepared remarks, and noted how closely she stuck to the script -- as an unusual claim. (Especially those of my colleagues on the convention floor at the time, reading along on the prompter with her, noticing her excellent and disciplined delivery, how she punched words that were underlined and paused where it said "pause," noting that "nuclear" was spelled out for her phonetically.) [...]


"The teleprompter did not break," wrote Politico's Jonathan Martin. "Sarah Palin delivered a powerful speech last night, but she did not 'wing it'..."
.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-and-the-t.html
.


I mean, c'mon. We've already gone past Mencken's prophecied point, happily electing an outright moron, but is it truly necessary to make Orwell obsolete as well? This one is just stupid -- lying for the sake of lying. Lying, frankly, like a child.


McCain and Palin don't just lie about big things, like tax policy, Iraq and the economy. They even lie about petty trivialities -- any tiny little thing is fair game, if it lets them preen for a moment in front of their audiences.


LIARS!
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk
.

Posted by: McCain/Palin = LIARS! | September 15, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous | September 15, 2008 9:14 PM you wrote:
As part of the cover-up, Palin quickly transferred Bristol to another high school and made her move in with Sarah’s sister Heather 25 miles away!
If that is the case then it was the parents decision and there you go as usual second guessing.

Just seems to be so many Monday morning quarterbacks among the Dem clairvoyanter’s in the arrears. I know today how ya soulda done it.. What a Dem exercise in sophistry…

And the ENQUIRER also learned that Levi Johnston, the baby mamma’s future wedded dada, who was glad handed by John McCain at the GOP Convention, isn’t too happy about his impending shotgun nups either.

Must have some Dem in his gene pool if that is in fact the case. Guess it’s again the governments or somebody else’s problem. Don’t interfere with my play time let the government take over my responsibilities.. And if he was miffed he hid it well recently when he was seen on TV with Bristol.

Posted by: Cliff | September 15, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Nice going, anonymous with your drivel about Track Palin. Sounds like "a little weed, a little blow" Obama was his role model.

Posted by: Chicago for Hillary | September 15, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Scott, perhaps posting in the comments section and crystal meth aren't such a good combination?

Posted by: Chip_M | September 15, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Update- First CNN mention of this Story on CNN tonight - Lou Dobbs is on it- Obama campaign, of course denies....stay Tuned- if Lou nails down the story, the game is over

___________________

National Review

Monday, September 15, 2008


Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]


Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

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.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
____

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975).

OBAMA CAME TO NEGOTIATE A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWL OF OUR TROOPS- WAS HE AFRAID THE "100 YEARS WAR" CLAIM WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE JOKE IT ALWAYS WAS?

WHAT A HYPOCRITE !!!

WELL AT LEAST HE'LL HAVE ONE MORE THING IN COMMON WITH MCGOVERN AFTER NOVEMBER!


Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Even if every word in the National Enquirer was true (meaning that UFOs have abducted people and Kirsten Dunst WAS on a drunken binge), I would still be voting for McCain-Palin. Ironically, though, I'm glad it took a REPUBLICAN for the National Enquirer to finally be taken as seriously as the WaPo these days.

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse


FROM THE FOLKS WHO BROUGHT JOHN EDWARD'S, THEY NOW BRINGS YOU: "TRACK PALIN"
THE COKE HEAD WHO BEAT GOING TO JAIL BY GOING IN THE MILITARY AND HIS WONDERFUL PARENTS WHO RAISED SUCH A FINE FAMILY.


The NATIONAL ENQUIRER’S exclusive ongoing investigation of GOP VP Nom Sarah 'Barracuda' Palin’s goes far beyond a mere teen pregnancy crisis this week!

The Enquirer’s team of reporters has combed the Alaskan wilderness to discover the hidden truth about Gov. Palin’s family, which has become a central part of her political identity.

The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that Sarah's oldest son, Track, was addicted to the power drug OxyContin for nearly the past two years, snorting it, eating it, smoking it and even injecting it. And as Track, 19, heads to Iraq as part of the U.S. armed forces, Sarah and her husband Todd were powerless to stop his wild antics, detailed in the new issue of The ENQUIRER, which goes on sale today.

THE ENQUIRER also has exclusive details about Track's use of other drugs, including cocaine, and his involvement in a notorious local vandalism incident.

“I’ve partied with him (Track) for years,” a source disclosed. “I’ve seen him snort cocaine, snort and smoke OxyContin, drink booze and smoke weed.”

The source also divulged the girls would do anything for Track and he’d use his local celebrity status to manipulate other guys “to get them to steal things he wanted.”

“He finally did what a lot of troubled kids here do,” the source divulged. “You join the military.”

And as Gov. Palin has billed the state of Alaska for various expenses related to her children, as reported by The Washington Post, The ENQUIRER's investigation reveals that she was so incensed by 17-year-old Bristol's pregnancy that she banished her daughter from the house.

Another family friend revealed pre-prego Bristol was as much of a hard partier as Track was.

“Bristol was a huge stoner and drinker. I’ve seen her smoke pot and get drunk and make out with so many guys. All the guys would brag that the just made out with Bristol.”

When Sarah found out the teen was pregnant by high schooler Levi Johnston, she was actually banished from the house. As part of the cover-up, Palin quickly transferred Bristol to another high school and made her move in with Sarah’s sister Heather 25 miles away!

And the ENQUIRER also learned that Levi Johnston, the baby mamma’s future wedded dada, who was glad handed by John McCain at the GOP Convention, isn’t too happy about his impending shotgun nups either.

“Levi got dragged out of the house to go to Minnesota,” Levi’s friend told The ENQUIRER. “Levi realizes he’s stuck being with Bristol because her mom is running for Vice President.”

The friend also confided that both Bristol and Levi “broke up a few times and they definitely messed around with other people.”

Meanwhile, as members of the Palin family’s war viciously over “Trooper-Gate” and claims of Sarah’s extramarital affair have turned the political race into a chaotic arena of threats, denials and vicious attacks by political black ops, The ENQUIRER has discovered shocking new details about the red-hot affair scandal!

For the full story of the secrets Sarah Palin is trying to hide – pick up the new ENQUIRER!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

The U. S. Congress should approve any "status of forces" agreement (read TREATY) with Iraq negotiated by President Bush.

Bush should not be allowed to negotiate and approve without Congressional oversight a permanent military presence or any agreement with no time table for withdrawal.

The Iraqi Prime Minister must submit any status of forces agreement to the Iraqi Parliament for approval.

The U. S. should do no less.

Posted by: toritto | September 15, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Either one of two things happened in Iraq--
Either Obama tried to influence Zebari to stall the troop withdrawal until it was politically expedient for his campaign or Obama's first foray in diplomacy with Iraq resulted in the Iraqi Foreign Minister smearing his efforts.

One of them is not being honest.

Posted by: Edward Hawkins | September 15, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Actually, no, the Generals would not comment. The Chain of Command is VERY scrupulous about adhering to the code of not getting involved in things like this. They have enough to do. That does not prevent folks from retiring and then voicing their opinions, but it is very rare when still on Active Duty (gets you fired - ask Douglas MacArthur).

I for one would be surprised if Obama did this - it would be suicide. But then again, he has done some amazing things in his life that should have DQ'ed him long ago. I suspect those things are about to get a fuller airing.

He is done...maybe Hillary will pick him for VP in 2012.

Posted by: DPC | September 15, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

First MSM mention of this story on CNN Lou Dobbs tonight- Obama Campaign Denies Story...No surprise, Now it's out there- Stay Tuned

_____________________________

National Review

Monday, September 15, 2008


Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]


Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

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.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
____

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975).

OBAMA CAME TO NEGOTIATE A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWL OF OUR TROOPS- WAS HE AFRAID THE "100 YEARS WAR" CLAIM WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE JOKE IT ALWAYS WAS?

WHAT A HYPOCRITE !!!

WELL AT LEAST HE'LL HAVE ONE MORE THING IN COMMON WITH MCGOVERN COME NOVEMBER.

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Basic reality that gets overlooked:
Since 1950, the cost of most things we need has increased by a factor of at least 10. Since 1950 the average wage has increased only by a factor of 3.
In 1950 CEO's made 20 times what their workers were paid. Now CEO's make 500 times what there workers get paid.
Now two people working can afford less for their famillies than one working could in 1950. Each worker, though, produces more due to technology while recieving less.
In short "delegulation" and "free market" are nice code words for economic anarchy, where the strong can exploit the weak. We produce more and get less. We lose even more when we need to borrow from those who took more than their fair share in the first place.
Government by and for the people is our best means to confront those who are talking us into giving up all that the labor movement gained for us in the early twentieth century.
McCain is focusing the electorate on distracting irrelevant issues, like jingoism, gender, class, and race, so they will ignore issues and continue to vote against their own best interests.
Please don't continue to trust those who have proven they cannot be trusted. Please vote Democratic.
Check out Physicians for a National Health Plan and naomiklein.org. (Not that it's relevant, but Naomi Klein is better looking than Sarah Palin anyway.

Posted by: Charles | September 15, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

McCain has been on the take from wealthy, special interests for 26 years and has voted accordingly. His flip/flops on issues is a product of siding with which ever special interest he happens to be in the pocket of at the time. Maverick, schmaverick. He has sided with his boss, Bush 90% of the time. McCain's policies are the carbon copy of those of Bush. Let us not forget his role as one of the 5 in the Keating Five bank scandal. McCain uses his POW-status as a free pass for his reprehensible ethics. He is an angry man who feels that the world owes him for what he has lived through as a POW.

Posted by: gom | September 15, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous- Once again you demonstrate for the readers of the Washington post your 2nd grade, probably underemployed intellect by posting your McCain/Hatch Act post in MY name, because you're ashamed to use your own. You're as shameful as the Naked Emperor who went to Iraq to PROLONG the war!

_____________________________

National Review

Monday, September 15, 2008


Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]


Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

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.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
____

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975).

OBAMA CAME TO NEGOTIATE A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWL OF OUR TROOPS- WAS HE AFRAID THE "100 YEARS WAR" CLAIM WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE JOKE IT ALWAYS WAS?

WHAT A HYPOCRITE !!!

WELL AT LEAST HE'LL HAVE ONE MORE THING IN COMMON WITH MCGOVERN AFTER NOVEMBER!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Do you people believe that if you keep posting something again and again in response to a legitimate news story it will become true?

This is insane, not to mention completely unreadable. No wonder the American voters are confused.

Posted by: georgiademocratguy | September 15, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Sarah, THIS James Frey?
"Book Club" author's best-selling nonfiction memoir filled with fabrications, falsehoods, other fakery, TSG probe finds
JANUARY 8--Oprah Winfrey's been had.

Three months ago, in what the talk show host termed a "radical departure," Winfrey announced that "A Million Little Pieces," author James Frey's nonfiction memoir of his vomit-caked years as an alcoholic, drug addict, and criminal, was her latest selection for the world's most powerful book club.

In an October 26 show entitled "The Man Who Kept Oprah Awake At Night," Winfrey hailed Frey's graphic and coarse book as "like nothing you've ever read before. Everybody at Harpo is reading it. When we were staying up late at night reading it, we'd come in the next morning saying, 'What page are you on?'" In emotional filmed testimonials, employees of Winfrey's Harpo Productions lauded the book as revelatory, with some choking back tears. When the camera then returned to a damp-eyed Winfrey, she said, "I'm crying 'cause these are all my Harpo family so, and we all loved the book so much."
************

Thanks, I forgot how easily Oprah is fooled.

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone tried this (I only missed one McCain quote on Immigration):

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/MatchoMatic/fullpage?id=5542139

Posted by: JakeD | September 15, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Did McCain Violate The Logan Act AND the Hatch Act?!?

John McCain took a trip to south america—billed as official Congressional travel--with his two colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. It’s been reported that prior to the trip, John McCain spoke to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at around 4pm and Uribe gave him some highlights of the operation to spring the hostages. When the Senators had dinner with Uribe that night, they were briefed on the operation but none revealed it because they said it was “classified.”

When McCain was asked about the operation once the hostages were freed, he revealed the fact that he’d been briefed, and praised the operation.

Here’s the problem, there’s a law known as the Logan Act that reads:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The conversation with Uribe definitely qualifies as "correspondence or intercourse" and we have a "controversy" with the Colombian government because the United States has been on their back for years to get these hostages freed. To be sure, the trip itself was cleared by the US government, but that's different from State expressly allowing McCain to have a direct "classified” conversation with President Uribe about an ongoing controversy. If McCain was going to have private conversations with a foreign leader, the conversation itself would have to be cleared.

John McCain’s conversation with Uribe raises some serious questions that make more investigation necessary. Namely:

Was John McCain’s conversation with Uribe classified?
Did McCain have prior approval for this conversation?
Did McCain’s staff (or that of Liebermann’s or Graham’s) clear the content of the conversation with Uribe through the State Department?
Once McCain knew this information, did he—in good faith—make that information known to the State Department?
When asked about it, McCain’s aide reportedly said:

"I don't think that there is an established protocol" for such briefings, said a McCain aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. " 'Protocol' is not a word I would associate with this."

Perhaps there isn’t protocol, but there are laws. And for someone who wants to have the top job of enforcing them, voters deserve to know the due diligence he did on this trip to ensure that he upheld the same laws that govern our diplomats.

Questions are also circulating about McCain’s recent trip to Canada . It too was billed as not being political but rather Senatorial. Therefore, he needs to act like a senator, and not as a presidential candidate. This is because according to the Hatch Act, US government resources and personnel cannot be used in support of political purposes. As the principal on the trip, McCain would have to adhere to these rules, and save the conversation about his campaign for his own plane, at his own events, and not those done on the taxpayer dime. However, in his remarks while in Canada, McCain repeatedly referred to his presidential campaign including in the trip’s headline speech.

WHAT A REPUBLICAN CRIMINAL!

Posted by: The ONLY Scott in the WORLD! | September 15, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

The comments here that base anything on Amir Taheri are hilarious. He has been as thoroughly discredited as James Frey. Seriously. Do you guys even have a clue what b.s. you are regurgitating? It makes me a little sad for you.

Posted by: Sarah | September 15, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Real Clear Politics Today-

Election 2008 Latest Polls

Tuesday, September 16
Race Poll Results Spread

Pennsylvania FOX News/Rasmussen Obama 47, McCain 47 Tie

Ohio FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 48, Obama 45 McCain +3

Florida FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 49, Obama 44 McCain +5

Virginia FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 48, Obama 48 Tie

Colorado FOX News/Rasmussen Obama 46, McCain 48 McCain +2

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I am not voting for either of these two idiots. Ill be writing in Huckabee. I have a neihbor who will be writing in Hillary. I have sent off for a 2012 Huckabee sign., That is the sign I will have in my yard this election., I told my neihbor and he said he will get a Hillary 2012 Sign. LOL The funny thing is, There are no Obama or McCain signs on my street. In Ohio, We dont really like either of these Candidates. Feel Like We Do You can Go to Skip08 and order your candidates 2012 election sign, put it up for protest. http://www.skip08.com

I am not going to settle this year. I will write in a much more qualified candidate.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

geez has anyone seen the daw???? omfg

Posted by: yona loriner | September 15, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Let's see if McCain comes to his senses by November...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | September 15, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous- Once again you demonstrate for the readers of the Washington post your 2nd grade, probably underemployed intellect by posting your McCain/Hatch Act post in MY name, because you're ashamed to use your own. You're as shameful as the Naked Emperor who went to Iraq to PROLONG the war!

_____________________________

National Review

Monday, September 15, 2008


Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]


Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

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.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
____

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975).

OBAMA CAME TO NEGOTIATE A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWL OF OUR TROOPS- WAS HE AFRAID THE "100 YEARS WAR" CLAIM WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE JOKE IT ALWAYS WAS?

WHAT A HYPOCRITE !!!

WELL AT LEAST HE'LL HAVE ONE MORE THING IN COMMON WITH MCGOVERN AFTER NOVEMBER!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Did McCain Violate The Logan Act AND the Hatch Act?!?

John McCain took a trip to south america—billed as official Congressional travel--with his two colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. It’s been reported that prior to the trip, John McCain spoke to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at around 4pm and Uribe gave him some highlights of the operation to spring the hostages. When the Senators had dinner with Uribe that night, they were briefed on the operation but none revealed it because they said it was “classified.”

When McCain was asked about the operation once the hostages were freed, he revealed the fact that he’d been briefed, and praised the operation.

Here’s the problem, there’s a law known as the Logan Act that reads:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The conversation with Uribe definitely qualifies as "correspondence or intercourse" and we have a "controversy" with the Colombian government because the United States has been on their back for years to get these hostages freed. To be sure, the trip itself was cleared by the US government, but that's different from State expressly allowing McCain to have a direct "classified” conversation with President Uribe about an ongoing controversy. If McCain was going to have private conversations with a foreign leader, the conversation itself would have to be cleared.

John McCain’s conversation with Uribe raises some serious questions that make more investigation necessary. Namely:

Was John McCain’s conversation with Uribe classified?
Did McCain have prior approval for this conversation?
Did McCain’s staff (or that of Liebermann’s or Graham’s) clear the content of the conversation with Uribe through the State Department?
Once McCain knew this information, did he—in good faith—make that information known to the State Department?
When asked about it, McCain’s aide reportedly said:

"I don't think that there is an established protocol" for such briefings, said a McCain aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. " 'Protocol' is not a word I would associate with this."

Perhaps there isn’t protocol, but there are laws. And for someone who wants to have the top job of enforcing them, voters deserve to know the due diligence he did on this trip to ensure that he upheld the same laws that govern our diplomats.

Questions are also circulating about McCain’s recent trip to Canada . It too was billed as not being political but rather Senatorial. Therefore, he needs to act like a senator, and not as a presidential candidate. This is because according to the Hatch Act, US government resources and personnel cannot be used in support of political purposes. As the principal on the trip, McCain would have to adhere to these rules, and save the conversation about his campaign for his own plane, at his own events, and not those done on the taxpayer dime. However, in his remarks while in Canada, McCain repeatedly referred to his presidential campaign including in the trip’s headline speech.

WHAT A REPUBLICAN CRIMINAL!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Are you serious!?!!!

McCain and Bush used lies to get us in this unjust war.

How that not bother you so much more?!?

Posted by: Sally | September 15, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

You bet they are bailing out. In the event Americans are zombies in November and elect Obama, they want to get approval for their wind power.
NO OBAMA. He is not an "honorable" man.

Posted by: NO HYPOCRITES | September 15, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm assuming that those who constantly repeat the right wing talking points - blog after blog, column after column - are on the GOP payroll.

Posted by: bruce wendell | September 15, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Scott is a one issue voter: The Logan Act!

LOL - too funny!

Posted by: Sally | September 15, 2008 5:54 PM
*************
No Sally- Hypocrisy-
Claiming McCain wanted a 100 year war, Obama went to Iraq and negotiated a DELAYED exit for our troops!
How can that Not bother you Sally?

And Corn Ethanol...

And the his opposition to the Infant Protection Act...

And Tony Rezko....

And Bill Ayres...


*********
National Review

Monday, September 15, 2008


Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]


Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

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.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
____

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975).

OBAMA CAME TO NEGOTIATE A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWL OF OUR TROOPS- WAS HE AFRAID THE "100 YEARS WAR" CLAIM WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE JOKE IT ALWAYS WAS?

WHAT A HYPOCRITE !!!

WELL AT LEAST HE'LL HAVE ONE MORE THING IN COMMON WITH MCGOVERN AFTER NOVEMBER!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

What the author fails to disclose, and you can look it up, is that Sam Wyly was, subsequent to the 2004 election, specifically targeted for investigation by Carl Levin's committee.

Why Wyly? Gee.

Bad relations with a legislative branch that has sweeping and elective investigative powers is bad for business. I would imagine that Wyly will not be the only one scared off by the revenge of those in power who have the leverage to do so.

Don't confuse this story with some suggestion that Wyly has discovered the Obamessiah.

Posted by: Michael | September 15, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Did McCain Violate The Logan Act AND the Hatch Act?!?

John McCain took a trip to south america—billed as official Congressional travel--with his two colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. It’s been reported that prior to the trip, John McCain spoke to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at around 4pm and Uribe gave him some highlights of the operation to spring the hostages. When the Senators had dinner with Uribe that night, they were briefed on the operation but none revealed it because they said it was “classified.”

When McCain was asked about the operation once the hostages were freed, he revealed the fact that he’d been briefed, and praised the operation.

Here’s the problem, there’s a law known as the Logan Act that reads:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The conversation with Uribe definitely qualifies as "correspondence or intercourse" and we have a "controversy" with the Colombian government because the United States has been on their back for years to get these hostages freed. To be sure, the trip itself was cleared by the US government, but that's different from State expressly allowing McCain to have a direct "classified” conversation with President Uribe about an ongoing controversy. If McCain was going to have private conversations with a foreign leader, the conversation itself would have to be cleared.

John McCain’s conversation with Uribe raises some serious questions that make more investigation necessary. Namely:

Was John McCain’s conversation with Uribe classified?
Did McCain have prior approval for this conversation?
Did McCain’s staff (or that of Liebermann’s or Graham’s) clear the content of the conversation with Uribe through the State Department?
Once McCain knew this information, did he—in good faith—make that information known to the State Department?
When asked about it, McCain’s aide reportedly said:

"I don't think that there is an established protocol" for such briefings, said a McCain aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. " 'Protocol' is not a word I would associate with this."

Perhaps there isn’t protocol, but there are laws. And for someone who wants to have the top job of enforcing them, voters deserve to know the due diligence he did on this trip to ensure that he upheld the same laws that govern our diplomats.

Questions are also circulating about McCain’s recent trip to Canada . It too was billed as not being political but rather Senatorial. Therefore, he needs to act like a senator, and not as a presidential candidate. This is because according to the Hatch Act, US government resources and personnel cannot be used in support of political purposes. As the principal on the trip, McCain would have to adhere to these rules, and save the conversation about his campaign for his own plane, at his own events, and not those done on the taxpayer dime. However, in his remarks while in Canada, McCain repeatedly referred to his presidential campaign including in the trip’s headline speech.

WHAT A REPUBLICAN CRIMINAL!


Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

National Review

Monday, September 15, 2008


Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]


Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

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.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
____

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975).

OBAMA CAME TO NEGOTIATE A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWL OF OUR TROOPS- WAS HE AFRAID THE "100 YEARS WAR" CLAIM WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE JOKE IT ALWAYS WAS?

WHAT A HYPOCRITE !!!

WELL AT LEAST HE'LL HAVE ONE MORE THING IN COMMON WITH MCGOVERN AFTER NOVEMBER!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

REMEMBER SPIRO AGNEW?

Am I the only one who sees what is going on here with Palin? We all know she has no qualifications and she was just picked as window dressing and as a stooge to say what ever they put in her mouth. No candidate in their right mind would really want her on their ticket. This is what I think will happen and may already be secretly in the plan.

If Mccain manages to get elected, they will get rid of Palin as soon as they can, using all of the scandal surrounding her as the reason. There is already information of drug use by her son and both daughters and Enquirer has eluded to something coming out about Palin and her husband are regular drug users. Once rid of her, Mcain then will put in Lieberman like he wanted to all along and that is how it will play out. What do you think, make sense?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

u guys r great

Posted by: yona loriner | September 15, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Proof? I think the Generals would comment if your accusations were true.

If you do not have proof, you and Jonah should be held accountable for your seriously vial charges.

Vicious lies, but not unexpected.

Posted by: faithwell | September 15, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Did McCain Violate The Logan Act AND the Hatch Act?!?

John McCain took a trip to south america—billed as official Congressional travel--with his two colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. It’s been reported that prior to the trip, John McCain spoke to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at around 4pm and Uribe gave him some highlights of the operation to spring the hostages. When the Senators had dinner with Uribe that night, they were briefed on the operation but none revealed it because they said it was “classified.”

When McCain was asked about the operation once the hostages were freed, he revealed the fact that he’d been briefed, and praised the operation.

Here’s the problem, there’s a law known as the Logan Act that reads:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The conversation with Uribe definitely qualifies as "correspondence or intercourse" and we have a "controversy" with the Colombian government because the United States has been on their back for years to get these hostages freed. To be sure, the trip itself was cleared by the US government, but that's different from State expressly allowing McCain to have a direct "classified” conversation with President Uribe about an ongoing controversy. If McCain was going to have private conversations with a foreign leader, the conversation itself would have to be cleared.

John McCain’s conversation with Uribe raises some serious questions that make more investigation necessary. Namely:

Was John McCain’s conversation with Uribe classified?
Did McCain have prior approval for this conversation?
Did McCain’s staff (or that of Liebermann’s or Graham’s) clear the content of the conversation with Uribe through the State Department?
Once McCain knew this information, did he—in good faith—make that information known to the State Department?
When asked about it, McCain’s aide reportedly said:

"I don't think that there is an established protocol" for such briefings, said a McCain aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. " 'Protocol' is not a word I would associate with this."

Perhaps there isn’t protocol, but there are laws. And for someone who wants to have the top job of enforcing them, voters deserve to know the due diligence he did on this trip to ensure that he upheld the same laws that govern our diplomats.

Questions are also circulating about McCain’s recent trip to Canada . It too was billed as not being political but rather Senatorial. Therefore, he needs to act like a senator, and not as a presidential candidate. This is because according to the Hatch Act, US government resources and personnel cannot be used in support of political purposes. As the principal on the trip, McCain would have to adhere to these rules, and save the conversation about his campaign for his own plane, at his own events, and not those done on the taxpayer dime. However, in his remarks while in Canada, McCain repeatedly referred to his presidential campaign including in the trip’s headline speech.

WHAT A REPUBLICAN CRIMINAL!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Top Gun Johnnie was a war criminal bombing civilians in Hanoi. He's lucky they didn't kill him when he crashed. After all, that's what he was doing to them.

58,000+ kids died for nothing.

Posted by: toritto | September 15, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The Truth from the Iraqi Foreign Minister

National Review

Monday, September 15, 2008


Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]


Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

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.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
____

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975).

OBAMA WENT TO NEGOTIATE A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWL OF OUR TROOPS- WAS HE AFRAID THE "100 YEARS WAR" CLAIM WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE JOKE IT ALWAYS WAS?

WHAT A HYPOCRITE !!!

WELL AT LEAST HE'LL HAVE ONE MORE THING IN COMMON WITH MCGOVERN AFTER NOVEMBER!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

The Truth from the Iraqi Forein Minister

National Review

Monday, September 15, 2008


Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]


Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

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.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
____

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975).

OBAMA WENT TO NEGOTIATE A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWL OF OUR TROOPS- WAS HE AFRAID THE "100 YEARS WAR" CLAIM WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE JOKE IT ALWAYS WAS?

WHAT A HYPOCRITE !!!

WELL AT LEAST HE'LL HAVE ONE MORE THING IN COMMON WITH MCGOVERN AFTER NOVEMBER!

Posted by: Scott | September 15, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company