I thought Obama was a constitutional law prof?

The fact that Barack Obama is a left-wing constitutional law professor is one of the biggest strikes against him in my book. Why? Well, the thing about left-wing constitutional law is that it’s designed to poke holes in the Constitution to justify statist actions. Both major parties have subscribed to this view of con law for the better part of a century, and the government you see today is the result.

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.

Obama admits he did this. It’s a disgrace. And a felony under The Logan Act.

And yet here you are, why then do you keep coming back? Do you think readers are here for your insightful comments?

People like you and VRB are nothing but school yard bullies that poke at people to boost your own self esteem.

Don’t like it, don’t read it.

1. That Taheri has a political ax to grind is pretty clear from his article/column, which is clearly an opinion piece. While opinion pieces have their value, they’re not very reliable sources of objectively presented information.
2. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Minister said what Taheri quoted. BUT…you have to separate the quote from Taheri’s spin regarding the meaning of that quote; without some context for the quote, I don’t think it can tell you very much at all.
3. Stripped of Taheri’s spin, that quote is simply “He [presumably Obama] asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.” Last I checked, there was a BIG difference between asking about why someone may or may not choose a course of action and demanding that someone take a specific course of action.
4. Let’s not forget that this is hearsay from someone for whom English is not a first language, and possibly double hearsay (if the minister had an interpreter).
5. Also, the operative phrase in the Obama statement is “rush through.” If the Obama statement is to be believed (and, since it’s an official statement of a politician, it probably shouldn’t be believed anymore than Taheri’s article), this would imply that Obama was simply indicating that the Iraqi government should not concern itself with the fact that the Bush Administration is nearing its conclusion in negotiating the SOFA. In other words, it would seem Obama was merely suggesting that the Iraqis would still be able to negotiate after the Bushies leave office, and that the end of the Bush Administration should not be seen as setting an artificial deadline for the SOFA.

One other thing occured to me:Morigi said the article contained “outright distortions.” If the content of the article wasn’t truthful, why didn’t Morigi say the article contained “outright lies”? To me this suggests that there is at least a grain of truth to Taheri’s article.

I haven’t been able to find a statement anywhere from the Obama campaign. So far, the best I could find was a blog posted on the campaign website: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/nemokc/gG5Xbh

According to this blogger, Taheri has a political axe to grind and has been less than truthful in some other articles he has written.

No pressing questions were asked as to what was a lie, especially since the news is presented in 45 second bits, but I’ll be interested to know what they are saying is a lie. Thanks for keeping up with this.

I’m confused. Isn’t that exactly what Taheri said?