• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

What effect will a new US-Iraqi agreement have on the election?

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
http://www.reuters.com/article...idUSLI497299._CH_.2400

Iraq's foreign minister said a draft of the agreement hammered out after months of negotiations was now final and being reviewed by political leaders. Parliament would be given a chance to vote for or against it, but not to make changes.

The agreement "has been presented as a final text by the two negotiating teams. The time now is time for a decision," Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari told a news conference. "I believe the next few days will be crucial for the Iraqi leaders to make a political decision and a judgment on this agreement."




Will this dominate the news cycle and give McCain a chance to focus on foreign affairs? Will he claim it as HIS victory as a result of the surge? Will it have any effect.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
hehe. I guess that's why McCain is having a tough time. Posts about Iraq get far less attention than posts about McCains tongue.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Its the usual my way or the highway for GWB&co. As a written in stone document, its a binary approve it or reject it for the Iraqi Parliament, and starts out with significant Al-Sadr blackballs.

One would think any US Iraqi security agreement would have a better chance of passage if it were subject to some modifications. And as for the GWB contention that no US congressional approval is necessary,
the US constitution clearly states otherwise, so its likely to cause problems in Iraq and Washington.

As GWB falls further and further into lame duck status, his ability to dictate anything keeps reducing. Were McCain the odds on favorite to win the election, GWB&co might be doing better, but if Obama wins come Nov 4, GWB&co is going to have a very hard time doing much of anything.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Of interesting note.
Another interesting note:

The agreement sets the end of 2011 as a concrete date for American withdrawal from Iraq, based on the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi security forces, and sets several specific dates for troop withdrawals from specific cities

Oh Noes. It's a TIMETABLE for defeat.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It will hurt Obama. Mccain will go on about the surge again.
Why do you think Obama has been trying to sabotage any agreements (read: not treaty, so it doesn't need Congressional ratification) made?
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: techs

Will this dominate the news cycle and give McCain a chance to focus on foreign affairs? Will he claim it as HIS victory as a result of the surge? Will it have any effect.
Least Bush will have outdone Lyndon Johnson, eh?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It will hurt Obama. Mccain will go on about the surge again.
Why do you think Obama has been trying to sabotage any agreements (read: not treaty, so it doesn't need Congressional ratification) made?
Examples and hard evidence?

I mean that sincerely, this election does affect me greatly but i can't vote.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: techs

Will this dominate the news cycle and give McCain a chance to focus on foreign affairs? Will he claim it as HIS victory as a result of the surge? Will it have any effect.
Least Bush will have outdone Lyndon Johnson, eh?
Considering the amount of times W and his cabal has claimed victory, what's one more time going to do?
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It will hurt Obama. Mccain will go on about the surge again.
Why do you think Obama has been trying to sabotage any agreements (read: not treaty, so it doesn't need Congressional ratification) made?
Examples and hard evidence?

I mean that sincerely, this election does affect me greatly but i can't vote.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...008/06/16/1146329.aspx

He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration," Obama said. "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made."


Curious how the lefties didn't have any problem with Clinton showing the Kyoto Protocol and 30000 pages of midnight executive orders down Bush's throat.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It will hurt Obama. Mccain will go on about the surge again.
Why do you think Obama has been trying to sabotage any agreements (read: not treaty, so it doesn't need Congressional ratification) made?
Examples and hard evidence?

I mean that sincerely, this election does affect me greatly but i can't vote.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...008/06/16/1146329.aspx

He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration," Obama said. "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made."


Curious how the lefties didn't have any problem with Clinton showing the Kyoto Protocol and 30000 pages of midnight executive orders down Bush's throat.
Your lies have been debunked by none other than Iraq's Foreign Minister.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It will hurt Obama. Mccain will go on about the surge again.
Why do you think Obama has been trying to sabotage any agreements (read: not treaty, so it doesn't need Congressional ratification) made?
Examples and hard evidence?

I mean that sincerely, this election does affect me greatly but i can't vote.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...008/06/16/1146329.aspx

He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration," Obama said. "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made."


Curious how the lefties didn't have any problem with Clinton showing the Kyoto Protocol and 30000 pages of midnight executive orders down Bush's throat.
Your lies have been debunked by none other than Iraq's Foreign Minister.
Obama's own words are lies now, eh? Is this kind of like the 'DC gun ban is constitutional' lie?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
You call that sabotage? Sincerely?

I completely agree with him, it's fairly well known amongst everyone that is not a fanatical Bush/Blair supporter that Zebari does not matter in the least to the situation.

I'm a Tory, which according to Vic is far right of McCain but i'm not bloody stupid like you seem to be.

You have to realise that a lasting peace has to be negotiated with all parties both in the US and in Iraq if it's going to have any effect what so ever, you do understand that, don't you? McCain understands that and has said so himself but you can't grasp it?

Seriously, no one would be happier than me if we got out of the Iraq war and got some support over here but it's going to be have to be done the right way, not some half arsed way.

I can see Bush's desperation, he failed with the Israel-Palestine peace treaty so he wants something good out of Iraq to be his legacy, i share Obamas concerns about it, violence is up every fucking where in the ME because of Iraq and THAT is the only legacy he'll ever have.

Fuck Bush and fuck Blair, incompetent liars is their rightful legacy.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It will hurt Obama. Mccain will go on about the surge again.
Why do you think Obama has been trying to sabotage any agreements (read: not treaty, so it doesn't need Congressional ratification) made?
Examples and hard evidence?

I mean that sincerely, this election does affect me greatly but i can't vote.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...008/06/16/1146329.aspx

He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration," Obama said. "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made."


Curious how the lefties didn't have any problem with Clinton showing the Kyoto Protocol and 30000 pages of midnight executive orders down Bush's throat.
Your lies have been debunked by none other than Iraq's Foreign Minister.
The fuck are you twatting about, he was right in his contention, stay out of these issues because you clearly don't give a fuck about wrong or right.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It will hurt Obama. Mccain will go on about the surge again.
Why do you think Obama has been trying to sabotage any agreements (read: not treaty, so it doesn't need Congressional ratification) made?
Examples and hard evidence?

I mean that sincerely, this election does affect me greatly but i can't vote.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...008/06/16/1146329.aspx

He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration," Obama said. "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made."


Curious how the lefties didn't have any problem with Clinton showing the Kyoto Protocol and 30000 pages of midnight executive orders down Bush's throat.
Your lies have been debunked by none other than Iraq's Foreign Minister.
The fuck are you twatting about, he was right in his contention, stay out of these issues because you clearly don't give a fuck about wrong or right.
Aren't you British? You will do as America says, always. What you think isn't important to us. Ask Poodle Blair.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It will hurt Obama. Mccain will go on about the surge again.
Why do you think Obama has been trying to sabotage any agreements (read: not treaty, so it doesn't need Congressional ratification) made?
Examples and hard evidence?

I mean that sincerely, this election does affect me greatly but i can't vote.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...008/06/16/1146329.aspx

He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration," Obama said. "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made."


Curious how the lefties didn't have any problem with Clinton showing the Kyoto Protocol and 30000 pages of midnight executive orders down Bush's throat.
Your lies have been debunked by none other than Iraq's Foreign Minister.
The fuck are you twatting about, he was right in his contention, stay out of these issues because you clearly don't give a fuck about wrong or right.
Aren't you British? You will do as America says, always. What you think isn't important to us. Ask Poodle Blair.
If you knew how to read you would already know that i despise Blair and that i am a Tory.

Is this shit leading anywhere or are you just fucked up in the head and trolling is your only way of getting some honor that your fat arse doesn't deserve back?

You know what, fuck you Dari, if there is one supporter Obama doesn't need it's you.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It will hurt Obama. Mccain will go on about the surge again.
Why do you think Obama has been trying to sabotage any agreements (read: not treaty, so it doesn't need Congressional ratification) made?
Examples and hard evidence?

I mean that sincerely, this election does affect me greatly but i can't vote.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...008/06/16/1146329.aspx

He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration," Obama said. "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made."


Curious how the lefties didn't have any problem with Clinton showing the Kyoto Protocol and 30000 pages of midnight executive orders down Bush's throat.
Your lies have been debunked by none other than Iraq's Foreign Minister.
The fuck are you twatting about, he was right in his contention, stay out of these issues because you clearly don't give a fuck about wrong or right.
Aren't you British? You will do as America says, always. What you think isn't important to us. Ask Poodle Blair.
If you knew how to read you would already know that i despise Blair and that i am a Tory.

Is this shit leading anywhere or are you just fucked up in the head and trolling is your only way of getting some honor that your fat arse doesn't deserve back?

You know what, fuck you Dari, if there is one supporter Obama doesn't need it's you.
You may hate Blair but this changes nothing. When America says jump you just need to inquire about the height. No one cares what you think because you can't say no, especially a Tory.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY