Fight the Smears

CNN Political Ticker: Obama did not ask to delay security agreement, Iraqi FM says

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did not urge Iraqi officials to delay a decision on a security agreement with the United States, Iraq’s foreign minister told CNN on Sunday.

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AGREE WITH OBAMA ON SFA AND SOFA

Senators Hagel, Lugar, Kerry, And Biden Wrote A Bipartisan Letter To Secretaries Rice And Gates Saying That The Status Of Forces Agreement Should Be Brought Before The Foreign Relations Committee And Congress. Senators Hagel, Lugar, Biden, And Kerry wrote Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice a letter saying, “The prospects for lasting success of status of forces talks and other aspects of Iraq policy in the final months of this Administration will be enhanced by the full participation of the Foreign Relations Committee and Congress. We therefore urge you to provide substantive answers to all outstanding questions-for-the-record, to personally appear before the Committee in closed session, to share the text of the most recent draft agreements, and to commit to providing the Committee with the text of the final draft agreement before it is concluded with the government of Iraq. Thank you for your consideration.” [Letter To Secretaries Rice and Gates, 6/4/08]

Senators Voinovich, Casey, Hagel, Webb, And Biden Cosponsored A Bipartisan Bill To Direct The Secretary of Defense And Secretary Of State Consult With Appropriate Congressional Committees On Negotiations Pursuant To The Declaration of Principles Between The US And Iraq. Senators Voinovich, Casey, Hagel, Webb, and Biden sponsored a bill that “Directs the President to report annually to the appropriate congressional committees respecting U.S. security commitments to, and arrangements with, other countries. Directs the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense to consult with the appropriate congressional committees respecting negotiations pursuant to the Declaration of Principles between the United States and Iraq.” [S.3433, 8/1/08]

Senators Harkin, Cardin, Hagel, And Reed Cosponsored Sen. Webb’s Bipartisan Amendment That Would Ask The Bush Administration To Consult With Congress Regarding The Details Of SOFA and SFA And The Full Texts Of The Agreement Should Be Provided To The Senate Foreign Relations And Armed Services Committees And The SFA Should Cease To Have Effect Unless Approved By Congress Within 180 Days Of Entry Into The Agreement. Senators Hagel, Harkin, Cardin, and Reed cosponsored Senator Webb’s amendment that would among other things express the Sense of the Senate that “the Bush Administration having fully agreed to consult with Congress regarding all details of the strategic framework agreement and status of forces agreement between the United States and Iraq, copies of the full texts of each such agreement should be provided to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the appropriate committees of Congress before entry into such agreement; and any strategic framework agreement mutually agreed upon by the Government of the United States and the Government of Iraq should cease to have effect unless approved by Congress within 180 days of the entry into force of such agreement.” [SA. 5499, Introduced 9/12/08]

• Webb Said The Amendment Would Put Congress And The Administration On Record “To The Reality That The Bush Administration Has Fully Agreed To Consult With The Congress Regarding All Details” Of The SFA AND SOFA. Sen. Webb said of his amendment, “The amendment also makes the point that the strategic framework agreement now being negotiated between the United States and Iraq poses significant long-term national security implications for this country. We need a sense of the Congress. We need to be saying that. The Iraqis need to hear it. The amendment also puts the Congress on record, and the Administration on record, to the reality that the Bush Administration has fully agreed to consult with the Congress regarding all the details of the strategic framework agreement and the status of forces agreement and that there will be copies of the full text of these agreements provided to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the appropriate committees in the house and senate prior to the entry into either of those agreements. Importantly, it also says that any strategic framework agreement that has been mutually agreed upon by the negotiators from our executive branch and the Iraqi government officials will cease to have effect unless it is approved by the Congress within 180 days of the entry into force of that agreement.” [Webb Release, 9/12/08]

Washington Post: “Democrats, And Some Republicans” Maintained That Any Agreement “Would Require Senate Ratification.” “A declaration of principles signed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush in December said the agreement would include “security assurances and commitments” to Iraq to deter foreign aggression. Democrats, and some Republicans, maintained that any such agreement — particularly if it includes a defense commitment — would require Senate ratification. The administration has claimed executive authority, but has pledged that the agreement will contain no troop commitments and no promise to defend Iraq, and will not constrain the next president. But Democratic lawmakers have demanded details of the proposed agreements and also assurances that Congress will have veto power. The administration declined until Tuesday to provide a senior official to discuss the drafting of the agreements or negotiations with Iraq. During a tense joint hearing of the House Foreign Affairs oversight and Middle East subcommittees, David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s chief Iraq adviser, did not answer to lawmakers’ satisfaction questions about Congress’s role in the agreements. Ackerman gave him 24 hours to respond. Bergner’s letter, said Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.), ‘creates the basis for a constitutional confrontation.’” [Washington Post, 3/6/08]

• Republican Dana Rohrbacher Said In A Hearing On The Declaration Of Principles In Iraq: “Congress Is Not Just A Potted Plant When It Comes To Helping Determine America’s Long-Term Policy” In Iraq. Republican Dana Rohrbacher said in a hearing discussing the Declaration of Principles in Iraq, “You know, Congress — I remember there was a — some hearings where someone was there and he said, ‘You know, I’m not just a potted plant; I’m here to participate.’ Well, Congress is not just a potted plant when it comes to helping determine America’s long-term policy. And unfortunately, this administration has not shown the cooperative spirit that is necessary for us to succeed as a nation. And I think they’ve been undermining their own ability to put forth a policy in Iraq that will work, and it should not have taken — and this is perhaps what we’re facing today, what I’m saying is precisely the reason why the administration is having troubles, not because of this end — because it took us so long to get you in those seats to talk to us about this issue. As this complex situation continues in Iraq, I would hope that we have more such discussions and that the administration has more witnesses. I actually agree with the administration on many of its foreign policy goals in Iraq. I’ve always been in agreement with it, but I’ve always understood that these decisions as to what policy should be does not rest simply with the president of the United States and the executive branch. George Bush was elected president. He was not elected king. There is too much at stake in this game for one-upmanship or turf battles dealing with Congress and the executive branch. We are all here at the behest of the American people, and they have a right to know where their government is taking them and for us to discuss it and figure out if that is the right decision and which way to go.” [Joint Hearing Of The Subcommittee On The Middle East And South Asia, And The Subcommittee On International Organizations, Human Rights, And Oversight Of The House Foreign Affairs Committee Subject: Declaration And Principles: Future U.S. Commitments To Iraq, 3/4/08]

Republican Senator Lugar: “Congress And The American People Should Be Thoroughly Apprised Of the Details Of Any Agreement Related To The Future Of American Involvement In Iraq.” Sen. Lugar said, “On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker testified that the agreements being negotiated, quote, ‘will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, and we anticipate that it will expressly foreswear them. The agreement will not specify troop levels and it will not tie the hands of the next administration. Our aim is to ensure the next president arrives in office with a stable foundation upon which to base policy decisions, and that is precisely what this agreement will do. Congress remains fully informed as these negotiations proceed in the coming weeks and months,’ end of quote from Ambassador Crocker. Although this is reassuring, Congress has legitimate concerns about commitments or understandings that might be made in these agreements, and subjects covered in a Strategic Framework agreement may directly or indirectly affect how and when American forces would be used in Iraq in the future…We are seven months from a presidential election. Even before that, our mission in Iraq may well evolve, based on conditions on the ground, the Iraqi political developments, and concerns about the strains on the American military. Congress and the American people should be thoroughly apprised of the details of any agreement related to the future of American involvement in Iraq.” [Hearing Of The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subject: Negotiating A Long-Term Relationship: Security Assurances Witnesses, 4/10/08]

Sen. Menendez: Many Of Us “On Both Sides Of The Aisle Largely Believe That Such An Agreement Needs To Come Before The Congress.” Sen. Menendez said, “Okay. Now, let me ask you this. It seems to me that what we are looking at here is a real concern in which we largely believe that — many of us, I think, on both sides of the aisle largely believe — that such an agreement needs to come before the Congress — I know that that’s not the administration’s point of view — or certainly before the Senate. But it is a real challenge to having seen the statement of principles, having seen precedence set here by the administration and signing statements and other relative where they will dictate what they believe the law is, notwithstanding what the Congress says the law is, that there is a total lack of confidence in that we will not be committed in the longer-term context in the status of forces agreement. Let me ask you in a different context, isn’t it true that in fact we have probably the greatest leverage right now, moving aside from the status of forces agreement and the necessity, we believe, for the administration to come to the Senate? Isn’t this the moment, as this agreement is negotiated, isn’t this of tremendous interest to the Iraqis as well as to us?” [Hearing Of The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subject: Negotiating A Long-Term Relationship: Security Assurances Witnesses, 4/10/08]

Former Counsel To The Senate Foreign Relations Committee: The Administration Should Submit The SFA To The Senate For Advice And Consent. Mike Glennon, the former counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said in a hearing, “There are two issues. The first, Mr. Chairman, is whether the administration’s negotiating something with Iraq that ought to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. My answer is yes. I know that the administration has said that it intends to make no explicit security commitment to Iraq that creates a binding legal obligation, but in my view that does not resolve the issue. I must say in listening to the administration’s testimony here this morning, I was rather reminded of that famous Magritte painting of the pipe — painting of a pipe and it’s entitled, ‘This is Not a Pipe.’ The questions still arises whether the administration, whatever it says, will be making an implied security commitment to Iraq, as you noted earlier in your initial comments.” [Hearing Of The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subject: Negotiating A Long-Term Relationship: Security Assurances Witnesses, 4/10/08]

OBAMA ON THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT AND THE STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT

Obama Said The Aspects Of Our Operations Involving Troop Immunity, That We’re There At The Invitation Of The Iraqi Government, And The Functions Laid Out In The UN Resolution That Is About To Expire Can’t Be Delayed But When It Comes To The SFA And Strategic Posture Long Term The Next Administration Can’t Be Bound By Agreements That Are Not Vetted Before Congress And The Representatives Of The American People. Obama was asked about the point he made during his trip to Baghdad that the Strategic Framework Agreement be deferred to the next administration. Obama said, “Here is what needs to be done now. Those aspects of our operations involving troop immunity, that we are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government, those functions that were laid out in the UN resolution that is about to expire we have to make sure that those are in place, all right. And so it is absolutely not true that I want any delay on that. I want that done as quickly as possible so that we are not exposing that. When it comes to the SFA when we start talking what our strategic posture is with Iraq long term, discussions about bases, mutual security agreements, broad strategic questions, all of which the Iraqis say they have to take to their parliament, what I did say to Prime Minister Maliki is that he should not expect the next administration to be bound by agreements that are not presented and vetted before Congress and representatives of the American people. And I absolutely believe that. I have said that publicly here back home, and it is something I feel very strong about.” [New York Times, 10/6/08]

Obama Campaign: Obama Has Consistently Urged The Bush Administration To Negotiate The Redeployment Of Troops In The Context Of The Status Of Forces Agreement. The Obama campaign said in a statement, “Barack Obama has consistently urged the Bush Administration to negotiate the redeployment of our troops in the context of talks about a Status of Forces Agreement. Todays announcement represents a step in the right direction, as the Administration has shifted from its opposition to any talks with Iraq about the removal of our combat troops, and specified a change in mission for American forces. Now, instead of vague illusions to a general time horizon, its time to pressure Iraqs leaders to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability, and to refocus on strengthening our military and finishing the fight in Afghanistan.” [Fox News, 7/19/08]

Obama Said We Shouldn’t Be Writing A Status Of Forces Agreement That Locks In A Long Term Occupation. “But he said that both Bush and McCain had repeatedly emphasized they would respect Iraq’s wishes as a sovereign nation on the issue of troops. ‘Given that I think it’s also in our strategic interest, it certainly strikes me that we shouldn’t be writing a status of forces agreement, for example, that locks in a long term occupation,’ Obama said.” [Reuters, 7/13/08]

Obama said The Status Of Forces Agreement Should Not Be Structured Without Congressional Input And Should Not Be Rushed. ‘I think that Prime Minister Maliki’s statement is consistent with my view about how withdrawals should proceed and how a status of forces agreement should not be structured without congressional input and should not be rushed,’ he said. ‘The concern that I’ve had has been that this administration negotiates with the Iraqis, signs something up that binds future administrations that isn’t going before Congress and that does not have a clear pathway for US troops to get out of Iraq. I think it’s encouraging, partly because of the extraordinary work of our troops on the ground in Iraq and improvements in the situation when it comes to Iraqi forces that the prime minister himself now acknowledges that in cooperation with Iraq it’s time for American forces to start setting out a timeframe for withdrawal and I hope that this administration as well as John McCain are listening to what prime minister Maliki has to say.’” [MSNBC, 7/7/08]

Zebari Said That Obama Asked Him Why Is The Iraqi Government In Such A Hurry To Get A Status Of Forces Agreement Completed. “Mr. Zebari said that on his recent trip to the United States, in addition to President Bush, he had met with the presumptive presidential nominees, Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, and Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat. He said that Mr. Obama had asked him: ‘Why is the Iraqi government in a rush, in a hurry? This administration has only a few more months in office.’ Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that even a Democratic administration would be better off having something “concrete in front of them to take a hard look at.” [New York Times, 7/3/08]

Obama Said Any Negotiations For The SFA Or SOFA Should Be Done In The Open And With Congress’ Authorization So It Can Have Bipartisan Support And Be Sustained Through A Future Administration. Obama said, “Hello everybody, we wanted to do this before we got onto the sight, I had a, good discussion this morning, with foreign ministers, [inaudible] Iraq, we discussed a broad range of issues, and I thought it was very constructive, he emphasized to me, it was his belief that, as a consequence of extraordinary efforts and sacrifices of US Military forces were made, significant progress in quelling the violence in Iraq, and, that, Iraq government is, deeply interested in, negotiating, effective, status of forces agreement, and strategic frame work agreement with the United States. I emphasized to him, how encouraged I was by, the reductions in violence in Iraq, but also, insisted that, it is important for us to begin, the process of drawing US troops, making it clear that we have no interest in permanent forces being in Iraq, that, any negotiations for a status of forces agreement or strategic frame work agreement, should be done, in the open and, with congress’s authorization. Because I believe it is in the interest of both Iraq, and the United States, that, any such critical negations have strong bipartisan support, and that, they can be sustained, through, a future administration.” [Press Avail, 6/18/08]

Obama Said He Worried The Bush Administration Would Come Up With An Agreement Binding To The Next Administration And We’re Better Off Not Trying To Complete A Hard And Fast Agreement Until The Next Administration Takes Office. “Asked by NBC’s Lee Cowan if a timetable for the status of forces agreement was discussed, Obama said, ‘Well he, the foreign minister, had presented a letter requesting an extension of the UN resolution until the end of this year. So that’s a six-month extension…Obviously we can’t have U.S. forces operating on the ground in Iraq without some sort of agreement, either a further extension of the U.N. resolution or some sort of Status of Forces agreement, some strategic framework agreement. As I said before, 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…The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made, but I think the only way to assure that is to make sure that there is strong bipartisan support, that Congress is involved, that the American people know the outlines of this agreement, and my concern is that if the Bush administration negotiates, as it currently has, and given that we’re entering into the heat of political season that we’re probably better off not trying to complete a hard and fast agreement before the next administration takes office, but I think obviously these conversations have to continue. As I said my No. 1 priority is making sure that we don’t have a situation in which us troops on the ground are somehow vulnerable to, are made more vulnerable, because there is a lack of a clear mandate.’” [MSNBC, 6/16/08]

Obama Agreed With Hillary Clinton That Bush Shouldn’t Be Able To Enter Into An Agreement To Tie The Hands Of The Next President Without Coming To Congress. “CLINTON: It appears that not only is he refusing to do that, but that he has continued to say he can enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government, without bringing it for approval to the United States Congress, that would continue America’s presence in Iraq, long after President Bush leaves office. I find that absolutely unacceptable. And I think we have to do everything we can to prevent President Bush from binding the hands of the next president. So I’ve introduced legislation that clearly requires President Bush to come to the United States Congress. It is not enough, as he claims, to go to the Iraqi parliament, but to come to the United States Congress to get anything that he’s trying to do, including permanent bases, numbers of troops, all the other commitments he’s talking about as he’s traveling in that region. And I want to ask Senator Obama if you will co-sponsor my legislation to try to rein in President Bush so that he doesn’t commit this country to his policy in Iraq, which both of us are committed to end. OBAMA: Well, I think we can work on this, Hillary. Because I don’t think — you know, we’ve got unity in the Democratic Party, I hope, on this. The notion that President Bush could somehow tie the hands of the next president, I think, is contrary to how our democracy’s supposed to work and the voices of the American people who spoke out in 2006 and I expect will speak out again in 2008.” [Democratic Debate, 1/15/08]