It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2008: Did Obama Violate the Logan Act During His Iraq Visit?

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Your OP doesn't make a cohesive statement. It starts off with some stuff about Obama, asking if he broke the Logan Act, which makes sense, and then out of nowhere it jumps a rail onto another tangent by asking the reader "What's the difference?" And then rambling about some GOP senators and a letter, assuming that the reader knows what you're talking about.

You made me feel pretty stupid today, sir. And I will never forget that.




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Throughout the entirety of your opening posts, you bring GOP vs. democrat to the forefront, and then you wrap it up with, 'I think it's all a divide-and-conquer technique'...how can you be divisive about an issue, and then dismiss the issue as divisive??

edit on 13-3-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Racist!



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470
Your OP doesn't make a cohesive statement. It starts off with some stuff about Obama, asking if he broke the Logan Act, which makes sense and then out of nowhere it jumps a rail onto another tangent by asking the reader "What's the difference?" And then rambling about some GOP senators and a letter, assuming that the reader knows what you're talking about.


Shame on me. You're absolutely right. I cringed (at myself!) when I read your comment and immediately realized that I did not properly set up the comparison. I should have presented the current debate about the GOP letter, with links, and then introduced my comparison. My apologies, and my thanks for pointing it out. I can't do this one over, but you can bet I will keep your words in mind for future posts.


You made me feel pretty stupid today, sir. And I will never forget that.


My apologies. If it's any consolation, I made myself feel even stupider... because you were smart enough to see where I went wrong and show me the error of my ways. Stupid rookie mistake on my part!



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney
Throughout the entirety of your opening posts, you bring GOP vs. democrat to the forefront, and then you wrap it up with, 'I think it's all a divide-and-conquer technique'...how can you be divisive about an issue, and then dismiss the issue as divisive??


Hmmm... that's an interesting way to look at it, but I don't see it that way.

My point is that both red team and blue team have been accused of violating the Logan Act, and if I remember my research correctly, only one person has ever been charged, but even they were never prosecuted for it. Simply based upon that simple truth, I seriously doubt anyone could be convicted based upon common law, which demands equal punishment for equal crimes. If no one has ever been prosecuted in its 200+ year history, it's too late now. The precedent has been set.

So where does that leave us in this current debate? Blue Team pointing fingers at Red Team, not understanding their other fingers are pointing right back at them. And it's all an exercise in futility, serving only the needs of the politicos, dividing the people over a "crime" that will never be prosecuted. But it sure makes good politic theater.

I find the Obama comparison especially relevant for two reasons: 1 -- Because the WH petition demanding prosecution for the GOP Senators is literally asking one violator to prosecute another violator, and 2 -- Obama is still subject to prosecution himself, as the statute of limitations has not yet run out (assuming a seven-year statute of limitations.)

Do I think Obama should be prosecuted? No. Do I think the GOP Senators should be prosecuted? No. In each instance, either party could have simply made the same statement to the public, and they would have achieved the same result. (I'm pretty sure both Iran and Iraq read the papers). And, most important, everyone has the right to express their opinions.

So, to me, saying, "Hey look! Everyone does it -- what's the difference?" is a unifier, not a divider. I'm saying, "Let's discuss the law -- not the people."



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Boadicea

Racist!


Haha!!! Not me. I'm color blind -- I thought "the dress" was white and gold!

Seriously, I'm just seeing red and blue... but I really really want to see PURPLE!!!



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
You guys are really a joke. I have never seen grown men carry on. If Boehner broke the law he needs to answer for it. It is so 6 year oldish to cry, "Obama broke the law first". Remember Bush? It seems Presidents are allowed to break the law, remember? I would laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
You guys are really a joke. I have never seen grown men carry on. If Boehner broke the law he needs to answer for it. It is so 6 year oldish to cry, "Obama broke the law first". Remember Bush? It seems Presidents are allowed to break the law, remember? I would laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.


Hmmm... I'm really trying to make some kind of sense out of this and failing miserably.... so I really have no idea how to respond except to say "thanks for sharing" and I will hope that other readers get more out of it than me.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
The validity of the article, and the position, seems to turn on one fact: whether we believe the paraphrase of an undocumented source for an Iraqi minister's words:



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 [2008].


The article does not even try to substantiate this fact by citing its source: the interview with Zebari.

Given the bias of the article's language, this seems more like a hit piece than serious journalism, barring references to an actual statement by Mr. Zebari.

However, in the "yeah, but this guy did it too" department, there is no doubt that the Reagan election team traitorously manipulated the Iranians in 1979 to hold our hostages until after Mr. Reagan was inaugurated.

Sometimes, it's a matter of degree, isn't it?



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The validity of the article, and the position, seems to turn on one fact: whether we believe the paraphrase of an undocumented source for an Iraqi minister's words:



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 [2008].


The article does not even try to substantiate this fact by citing its source: the interview with Zebari.


I've posted links to two articles, both quoting Zabari in an interview, so I'm not sure what you mean by this.

From the NY Post article:


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.


From the Accuracy in Media article:


“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.


Are you suggesting that Zabari did not say this?

According to the AIM article, Obama "issued a denial," but the link for that denial is now 404'd; however, Obama's campaign confirmed there was a meeting, and that the troop withdrawals were discussed:


Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri’s article bore “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.” 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, she said.


The article then goes on to compare and contrast the statements of Obama with Zebari.

Note: Obama does not deny the discussion, but the specific message. Fair enough. But in terms of the Logan Act, does it make a difference? The Logan Act is quite vague and leaves much to interpretation, subject to political pandering and other abuses, one of the reasons I think it is a stupid and useless law.


Given the bias of the article's language, this seems more like a hit piece than serious journalism, barring references to an actual statement by Mr. Zebari.


I am not sure what bias you are referring to specifically. I don't think we're seeing the same biases here!


However, in the "yeah, but this guy did it too" department, there is no doubt that the Reagan election team traitorously manipulated the Iranians in 1979 to hold our hostages until after Mr. Reagan was inaugurated.


If you have confirmation of this, I would really appreciate it if you could share some links, because I couldn't find it. I thought there were congressional hearings about it, but could only find Iran-Contra links... I am quite prepared to believe the worst about the release of the hostages, but I haven't seen any proof of such. If you can provide such proof, great; BUT --

If you cannot, then I have to ask: How can you say that "no doubt" Reagan's team did it; but doubt Obama's actions even when Obama's team confirmed it?

Also, I'm not seeing how it would be traitorous to the nation. It would definitely be a betrayal to the hostages, and a stab in the back to President Carter; but I don't see how it would be betraying the nation; more specifically, the Constitution.


Sometimes, it's a matter of degree, isn't it?


To you and me, yes. But not to the Logan Act (as I understand it). For example, as Antedilluvian (sp?) pointed out, Obama was not discussing issues with an adversarial nation; but the GOP Senators' letter was addressed to an adversarial nation. That is pertinent in considering the degree of the "crime" so to speak. The Logan Act makes no such distinction however, simply referring to "foreign policy" and "negotiations," etc.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Interesting -- and unexpected! -- development here!

House Warns Obama on Iran Deal


A bipartisan majority of House lawmakers have written a letter to President Obama backing up the letter 47 GOP senators controversially addressed to Iran on Monday with dire warnings about the impending nuke deal. Some 250 members had signed the House letter by Friday afternoon, a clear majority of the chamber.


They are not only backing up the GOP letter, they are drawing a line in the sand:


"Should an agreement with Iran be reached, permanent sanctions relief from congressionally mandated sanctions would require new legislation," they wrote. "In reviewing such an agreement, Congress must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief."


Wow. There's much more to this than we know. But that's all I've got for now. I can't wait to see how this plays out though!

Anyone else have any thoughts about it? Good? Bad? Ugly???



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Boadicea

Seriously? Don't you think the GOP would lay this on him if they could? Hell, they'd impeach him for jaywalking if they could. No teeth in this argument.




Or maybe it's because Republicans aren't a bunch of hurt feelings children like Democrats.

Reading the text of the law, and the reason it was drafted in the first place. It is obvious that the law wasn't designed to stop Senators from sending a courtesy letter to Iran informing them of how the Treaty process works in America. It was designed to stop a random guy who is non official from negotiating with another country because it would skip the ratification process outlined in the constitution. This law pretty much lays out the penalties for violating a constitutional amendment, because the constitution doesn't state punishments for ANY Violations of amendments.

Democrats are just pissy because now their dirty laundry is getting thrown all over the place and they are throwing a tantrum. Throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. It's actually an entertainment piece for me lately, finding out about the latest Liberal Hypocrite scandal and watch them scramble to pick up the pieces, it's glorious!

edit on 14-3-2015 by chuck258 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
NO fan of the current Administration, but I don't see how this kind of scrutiny breaks into serious discussion nearing the END of the second term of said administration...

Really? Shouldn't we be looking forward, and trying to figure out who may be best to serve US (the people) in the upcoming elections?

Shake the cobwebs loose of our collective noggins.... sit back with a tall glass of iced tea, and ask yourself...

Have things improved since our last NATIONAL SHOCK ( 9/11) ?

Are we (the people) comfortable?

Are we (the people) tired of being played by those we send to Washington?

If your answers are no, no, YES... than it's up to us to fix it...

Right now, those folks are living it up, high on the hog, thinking it's so easy to keep us distracted, like with this BS Logan act accusation on the current POTUS...

I think we are better than that, but so far, from observing this thread, they may be right....

Are they?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258

Reading the text of the law, and the reason it was drafted in the first place. It is obvious that the law wasn't designed to stop Senators from sending a courtesy letter to Iran informing them of how the Treaty process works in America.


Definitely. But it didn't stop anyone so inclined from completely misrepresenting the law... nor did it stop anyone so inclined from misrepresenting the letter and its contents. As usual, that's the first sign not to trust the troublemakers, and to watch for what is being hidden. It's becoming too predictable. They all sure had their talking points down quick, didn't they? Just like the forced-vaxxers...


Democrats are just pissy because now their dirty laundry is getting thrown all over the place and they are throwing a tantrum.


It's morphing on them now though! It started that way, or at least I thought it was just Democrats on the offense, but more than a few Republicans jumped on the bully bandwagon too... and then we have this letter from both Dems and Pubs... Are these Dems just pissy because they've been shut out of the process too? Are they genuinely concerned about what kind of deal their dear leader is making? Have these congress critters learned something in specific that alarmed them? Are they just pandering to their constituents/donors/next candidate? I really don't know. I just think there's a whole lot more to this than any of us know at this point.


watch them scramble to pick up the pieces, it's glorious!


How fun would it have been to be a fly on the wall when Obama heard about the second letter!



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
NO fan of the current Administration, but I don't see how this kind of scrutiny breaks into serious discussion nearing the END of the second term of said administration...


I'm not sure what "scrutiny" you are referring to. The GOP letter? The negotiations with Iran? The Logan Act? Generally speaking, if people are going to be charged with a crime, then yes, scrutiny is important... if our lame duck president is going to negotiate and execute a deal with an "enemy", then yes, scrutiny is important... if politicians are playing political games with laws, then, yes, scrutiny is important.


Really? Shouldn't we be looking forward...


Any deal Obama makes with Iran will affect our future. Isn't that looking forward? It doesn't serve any of us to ignore it now and rue it later.


...and trying to figure out who may be best to serve US (the people) in the upcoming elections?


You must have far more faith in our elections than I do at this point. And more faith in the potential candidates. Unless someone better throws their hat in the ring, I'll probably be voting Gary Johnson again.


Right now, those folks are living it up, high on the hog, thinking it's so easy to keep us distracted, like with this BS Logan act accusation on the current POTUS...


Are you referring to the BS Logan Act accusations against the GOP Senators? Or the BS Logan Act accusations against the President from 2008? Not that it matters to me. I think both such accusations are bogus and political theater. But then, I was never the one making such accusations. I simply asked if it's good for the goose, is it good for the gander as well. Is it fair to say you agree both are BS too? Or are Logan Act violations only BS when the President does it?


I think we are better than that, but so far, from observing this thread, they may be right....

Are they?


Better than what exactly? Who may be right?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
There are so many things that they could have and should have impeached Obama for by now.


Please exactly detail these "many things" that they could have impeached Obama for.... however, I doubt if we will see them!



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ketsuko
There are so many things that they could have and should have impeached Obama for by now.


Please exactly detail these "many things" that they could have impeached Obama for.... however, I doubt if we will see them!


Not trying to speak for Ketsuko...

Just wanted to say that I've seen an ongoing list somewhere of Obama's impeachable crimes. I haven't read the list -- sorry. But apparently some people believe he has committed such high crimes and misdemeanors. I'll pay attention when push comes to shove... and hope it doesn't involve a stupid blue dress.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
From the New York Times article about it from back in 2008:


Mr. Obama described his talk with Mr. Maliki as “a wonderful visit,” but news agencies reported that a government spokesman said that they did not discuss the timing of any troop withdrawal.


www.nytimes.com...

Hmmm... Sounds like someone is rewriting history so these Senators don't look like they screwed up. Not to mention that Obama was there in 2008 as part of a State Department sponsored delegation.

Way to push the lies, Boadicea.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc
From the New York Times article about it from back in 2008:

"Mr. Obama described his talk with Mr. Maliki as “a wonderful visit,” but news agencies reported that a government spokesman said that they did not discuss the timing of any troop withdrawal."

www.nytimes.com...

Hmmm... Sounds like someone is rewriting history...


Uh oh! You mean Obama's own national security spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi, is lying about him?


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, she said.


Wait... let me look up the definition of "after"... yup! Just as I thought, "after" is in fact a reference to time and therefore timing. Someone better let Obama know she's lying about him. Maybe you can get right on that?


Way to push the lies, Boadicea.


Wow. You just had to go there, huh? Am I supposed to be crushed? Did you expect me to go hide in the corner and cry my eyes out? Or silently and sheepishly slink off and never ever post again because an anonymous cyber warrior insulted me? Haha! LOL! Ain't gonna happen. And I won't even point out that it's you pushing the lies... oh wait! I just did.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
cyber warrior


Thanks! [polishes virtual armor]

From your own article you posted:

The Obama campaign issued a denial:

…Obama’s
national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri’s article bore
“as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.”


Wendy Morigi DENIED that it ever happened. So somebody in this situation if full of something and it sure isn't the truth. You might want to read your own article over again.
edit on 16-3-2015 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join