Barack Obama’s campaign has hinged on his message of change, and his most acclaimed example of good judgment is his initial opposition to the war in Iraq. Obama has been promising immediate retreat in Iraq, but it now appears that he may have been saying one thing and doing another, yet again.
According to the NY Post, Obama tried to convince Iraqi officials to delay the removal of troops until a new administration was in place. He reportedly also made a request to General David Petraeus and American military leaders to set a realistic time line for withdrawal. Obama was denied.
In response to the article, the Obama campaign responded by essentially confirming that Obama did attempt to disrupt the current agreements between the US government and Iraq:
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, [Obama national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi] said.
In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration’s hands on Iraq.
But Obama is not asking for a Congressional review of the current agreement; Obama wants to wait until he is President so he can take credit for a withdrawal agreement, even if that means leaving the troops in longer. Not only is Obama acting against his own words by attempting to delay troop withdrawal, but he’s playing a selfish political game with our troops in Iraq.
